and PEOPLE : 25 years FORESTS and PEOPLE: of Community years 25 of Community Forestry FORESTS and PEOPLE: years 25 of Community Forestry

by J.E.M. Arnold

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ROME 2001 Foreword

ALMOST TWENTY-FIVE YEARS have elapsed since the concept of community-based management emerged as a focus for addressing the linkages between forestry and rural people. Many countries are still at an early stage in the process of developing and introducing the concepts used in community forestry that may be appropriate to their situations. In others, community forestry has become central to the way forest The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion resources are managed. whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The experience of some of the longer-established and more flexible of these community forestry initiatives has been encouraging. It has become clear that, in the right circum- stances, local or joint control can result in increased flow of products and other benefits to local users, and can bring about an improvement in the condition of the resource.

The importance of the roles that forests and forestry play in rural livelihoods, especially of the poor, is well recognized. The need to involve rural users who depend upon forests in decision-making and activities related to the management of forest resources is becoming widely accepted. Furthermore, the experiences and knowledge gained All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product for educational or through community forestry have proven to be indispensable for sustainable forest other non-commercial purposes are authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright hold- management in a much wider context. The last decade of international dialogue on ers provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications forests has focused on the social, economic and environmental functions for sustainable for such permission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing and Multimedia Service, Information . Participatory approaches are central to this concept, and practical Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy or by e-mail to [email protected] implementation is relying heavily on community forestry experiences. This concept also

©FAO 2001 gives a sharper focus on poverty alleviation and the livelihoods of the rural poor.

A major theme of this publication is that community-based participatory forestry is part of the overall process of adapting forestry and forest management to make it more iv FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY

responsive and relevant to the needs and interests of rural people with a stake in Table of Contents forests. Community forestry is being redefined, not as a separate form of forestry but FOREWORD iii as part of the process whereby forestry itself is meeting broader societal, environmental LIST OF BOXES vii and economic challenges and changes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

This publication was supported and funded by FAO and the multidonor trust fund, the ACRONYMS ix INTRODUCTION 1 Forests, and People Programme (FTPP). It was prepared to fill a gap in the current documentation on community-based forest management. One of the most Part 1 highly requested and widely distributed of the FTPP publications has been Community PEOPLE AND FORESTS 4 Forestry Note 7, Community Forestry: Ten Years in Review, which provides a synthesis of the experience gained in community forestry by the end of the 1980s. Given the strong, Chapter 1. Historical overview 7 Decline in historical systems of local forest management 7 continuing demand for Ten Years in Review, we decided that a new review was needed Origins of the revival of community forestry 11 to record recent changes. Like the previous one, this publication not only describes An initial focus on 12 developments in community forestry over the past 25 years, but also looks Shifting the focus to the natural forest 15 to the future, highlighting some of the principal issues that are likely to influence Community forestry by the mid-1990s 18 community-based forest management. Chapter 2. Forests and rural livelihoods 23 Forest products in changing rural livelihood systems 24 We would like to pay special tribute to the author of this publication, Mr J.E.M. Changes in patterns of supply of forest raw materials 28 Arnold, a well-known authority on community-based forest management. He has been Evolving patterns of people, resource and product interactions 31 closely involved with community forestry at FAO since the outset, with the launch of Part 2 the Forestry for Local Community Development Programme in the late 1970s. We are CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY 34 grateful to him for having undertaken this comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in community forestry. Chapter 3. Collaborative management 41 The case for collective (and joint) management 41 Co-management in practice 46 Forest co-management in West Africa 46 in 49 Lennart Ljungman Hill community forestry in 55 Director, Forestry Policy and Planning Division Community management of forests in Mexico 57 Forestry Department vi FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY List of Boxes vii

Conditions that favour collective and joint management 59 Incentives and disincentives 61 List of Boxes Transferring effective power 65 PAGE The social and institutional framework for local collective management 68 1.Common property management and use in dry areas of India 10 Chapter 4. Smallholder management 77 2.Social Forestry woodlot projects in India 14 Smallholder management of forests 78 3.The rationale behind community involvement in forest management 20 Smallholder management in forest fringe areas 79 4.Forest outputs and rural livelihoods 26 Planted trees in farm landscapes 81 Contrasting farm forestry programmes 82 5.The role of forest products income in selected rural household situations29 Refocusing support strategies 85 6.Differences in performance of small and grass/cane/ Trees as contract crops 86 enterprise activities in Africa 30 Small-scale processing and trading of forest products 90 7.Key characteristics of major categories of community forestry system 36 Part 3 8.Attributes of common pool resources and of users that are conducive COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION 94 to self-government 43 9.Some issues that have arisen during implementation of Joint Forest Chapter 5. Key issues influencing community forestry 99 Management in India 52 Changing perceptions of the linkages between conservation and development 99 10. Plan Piloto Forestal, Quintana Roo, Mexico 60 Extending market liberalization and structural adjustment 102 Community forestry and the broader context of forestry 104 11. Some key elements of pluralism in sustainable forestry and rural development 74 Ensuring more effective empowerment of local users 104 12. Trees and land and labour allocation 83 Engaging forest departments and civil society 106 13. Framework for assessing forestry outgrower schemes 88 Chapter 6. Conclusions 111

REFERENCES 115 COMMUNITY FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS 129 viii FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY Acronyms ix

Acknowledgements Acronyms

CAMPFIRE Communal Areas Management JFM Joint Forest Management As a review study, the present work owes a debt of gratitude to many people who Programme for Indigenous MIQRO Maderas Industriales de Quintana helped shape the various concepts, studies and earlier exercises in review that are Resources Roo CARE Cooperative for Assistance and covered here. The author wishes in particular to thank a number of people who pro- NAFTA North American Free Trade Relief Everywhere Agreement vided ideas, comments and access to work in progress related to particular aspects CIFOR Center for International Forestry NAS National Academy of Sciences Research of the present publication: Anil Agrawal, Jon Anderson, Pari Baumann, David NGO Non-governmental organization CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial OCEES Oxford Centre for the Environment, Brown, Louise Buck, Neil Byron, Jane Carter, Peter Castro, David Edmunds, Julia Research Ethics and Society ESCOR Economic and Social Committee for Falconer, Robert Fisher, Marilyn Hoskins, Amrit Joshi, Natasha Landell-Mills, Overseas Research ODA Overseas Development Administration Anna Lawrence, Jonathan Lindsay, James Mayers, Elinor Ostrom, Nancy Peluso, FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal ODI Overseas Development Institute Michael Richards, Maria Sabban, Gill Shepherd, Nandini Sundar, George FTPP Forests, Trees and People Programme PPF Plan Piloto Forestal Varughese, Baskhar Vira, Katherine Warner, Sondra Wentzel and Frierk Wiersum. FUG Forest user group PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal He is also most grateful to those who commented on an earlier draft, in particular GEMINI Growth and Equity through PRODEFOR A government financial incentive Microenterprise Investments and plan those who participated in a review meeting at that stage and who, in so doing, con- Institutions RECOFTC Regional Community Forestry Training Center tributed greatly to improving its structure and content. In addition, he wishes to GTZ German Agency for Technical Cooperation UCODEFO Unit of Conservation and Forestry express his special thanks to the members of FAO’s Forestry Policy and Institutions ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Development Branch for their support and encouragement throughout the work. Mountain Development UNDP United Nations Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Programme Institute UNOFOC A network of forestry associations Several people worked on the preparation of this publication for press. Anna IIED International Institute for in Mexico Sherwood acted as the managing editor. Barbara Walsh copy edited the manuscript, Environment and Development USAID United States Agency for ITTO International International Development and Laura Clarke and Della Kennedy reviewed the proofs. The book design and lay- Organization VFC Village Forest Committee out was done by Joanne Morgante, with photographs by Roberto Faidutti. IUCN World Conservation Union WWF World Wide Fund for Nature X PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS XX

Introduction

This publication sets out to provide a review of how community forestry has evolved over the period since it first came to prominence in the mid-1970s. ‘Community forestry’ is interpreted as “any situation that intimately involves local people in forestry activity” (FAO, 1978). It therefore covers a broad range of linkages among people, forests and the outputs of forests, from forest- dwelling communities to populations who draw on nearby forests for part of their livelihood needs, and to those outside forests who manage stocks on farmland in order to sustain flows of forest outputs, or who engage in arti- sanal and other local small-scale commercial production and trade of forest products.1 A major theme of the publication is that community forestry is part of the overall process of adapting forestry and forest management to make it more responsive and relevant to the needs and interests of rural people with a stake

1 For discussion of various interpretations of the term ‘community forestry’ and of other terms, such as ‘social forestry’, ‘participatory forestry’ and ‘collaborative forestry’, which have also been used to describe initia- tives that involve people in forestry, see Wiersum, 1999; and Gilmour and Fisher, 1997.

Introduction 1 2 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY Introduction 3

in forests. Community forestry thus is interpreted not as a separate form of forestry, but taking place and will continue to take place. It also trees as part of farm systems, and small-scale pro- records the shifts that are taking place in patterns of duction and trade of forest products. Both chapters as part of the process whereby forestry is being refashioned in line with broader soci- supply of the products that rural people use (particu- discuss the extent to which such approaches appear etal and economic changes. Part 1 of the publication is devoted to exploring its evolu- larly the shifts from forests to bush fallow, farm trees to have been successful, and the main factors and other tree stocks), which result from the ways in explaining their performance. tion in terms of these changes. As the impact on forests and rural populations of key which people transform the natural resources avail- forces for such change, such as greater devolution and local participation, has varied able to them. A framework is developed to explore Part 3 discusses some of the principal issues that are throughout the world, the impact of community forestry has differed. Though of real rel- how the linkages differ across major categories of likely to influence the ways in which community resource, and livelihood systems. forestry continues to change. These include chang- evance to industrialized as well as developing countries, it has generally been more ing perspectives on the balance between conserva- important in the latter, and this is reflected in the balance of the publication. Against this background of information on past tion and development that may realistically be trends, and on needs and resources, Part 2 explores achieved in community forest management, the contemporary forms of community forestry systems. growing impact of market liberalization and the pri- Rural people have often practised some form of con- community forestry is at an earlier and more tenta- Chapter 3 explores different forms of collective gov- vate sector, and the debate on how to move towards trol and management of local forests in the past, and tive stage. ernance and support measures that have been approaches to collaborative management that there are many instances of historical systems that developed in different people-forest situations, and accommodate multiple stakeholders and interests. still exist, if only in reduced forms. As these have Part 1 examines the main features of relationships the measures that have been taken to encourage The publication concludes with an examination of been extensively reviewed elsewhere, they are not between people and forests. Chapter 1 reviews the and support them. Similarly, Chapter 4 examines the changing roles of governments and civil society dealt with at length here.2 Instead, this publication causes and consequences of the decline in locally systems based on smallholder rather than collective in forestry as they adapt to community forestry, and focuses primarily on initiatives that governments managed systems of forest management and use management, including farmer management of the implications of this for forest departments. and donors, and civil society, have taken in recent that were widespread in the past. It then examines times to create forms of community forestry relevant the factors underlying the changes in both govern- to circumstances prevailing at present. The publica- ment and local-level attitudes towards community tion reflects the reality that some of these contem- forestry that began to attract attention in the 1970s. porary systems are longer established and more fully The chapter concludes with a summary account of developed than others, and hence provide more the lessons learned in the early years of community experience from which lessons may be drawn. forestry initiatives, and of how this led to the main Though the discussion in the publication draws thrusts evident in the 1990s. heavily on this experience, and in particular on that in Asia, it is important to keep in mind that much Chapter 2 outlines the information available on the nature of people’s linkages with forests and forest products, highlighting the issue of choice versus 2 For regional and global reviews of this literature, see Wiersum, 1999; Ascher, 1995; Messerschmidt, 1993; Davis and Wali, 1993; dependency on forests, and the nature and conse- Shepherd, 1992; Arnold and Stewart, 1991; Ostrom, 1990; and Poffenberger, 1990. quences of the changes in these relationships that are As long as forest resources were abundant, unregulated ‘open access’ use was likely to prevail. However, as populations and economies grew, pressures on the resource, or the land, increased, and some form of control over rights of access and use was usually imposed. Many such systems of control incorporated at least a measure of local management by the user community.

The willingness and ability of people to involve themselves in the management of a forest or other tree resource is evidently linked to the nature and extent of their needs for forest products, and to their access to the resource. The incentive for those who are dependent on forest outputs (in the sense that they would suf- fer a decline in livelihood standards if they no longer had access to them) is likely to be greater than for those for whom these products are just one of several equiv- Part 1 alent options from which they can choose. In order to be able to understand what role community forestry might play in a particular situation, and what form it might take, it is therefore important to PEOPLE AND FORESTS know how forests and forest outputs contribute to local livelihoods, how supply and use patterns are changing, and the reasons for, and consequences of, these FORESTS AND FOREST PRODUCTS have almost everywhere formed changes. part of rural livelihood systems. Historically, they have been important to local people in two main situations, which often overlap. In one, forests and woodland formed part of broader livelihood systems based on rota- tional agriculture, with periods of cultivation alternating with longer periods of forest fallow. In the other, rural households filled gaps in the material and income flows from their on-farm resources by drawing on nearby areas of forest, woodland or scrubland.

4 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS 55 CHAPTER 1 Historical overview

Decline in historical systems of local forest management

ver time, increasing pressures for land to cultivate, together with the effects of economic and political changes, have often O greatly reduced the availability of forest resources for use by local people. While the consequent increase in pressures on remaining forests has sometimes served to strengthen incentives to bring or keep them under local control, it has often meant that existing systems for controlling access and use have also come under pressure and have been severely weak- ened or have ceased to function altogether. Frequently, increasing use of the resources that remain has then led to their progressive degradation. One of the main factors underlying these trends has been expropri- ation of forests by governments as forest reserves or as some other form

CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 777 8 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 999

of State property. During the colonial period in India, for instance, governments In addition, in all regions economic and demo- local requirements. As development theory came to graphic pressures have led to the progressive con- accentuate industry-led development in the 1950s started to lay legal claim to use of much of the forest estate and to exercise these version of forest areas for agricultural and grazing and 1960s, this priority in forest policy and prac- new powers. In the post-independence period, with the abolition of the princely use. These shifts have often been encouraged by tice became even stronger. land re-allocation programmes and the practice of states and the expropriation of their forests, control by the central government distributing land to the landless, and by widespread Governments have also tended to increase their was greatly extended. Many local people lost their rights of access to the forests encroachment and spontaneous settlement in for- control over local activities more generally, as they est areas. In recent times, land titling to promote tried to exert control over often diverse, fragmented during the process of forest reservation. Those ‘rights’ which were legally private tenure on farmland (on the grounds that and dispersed populations. Inevitable conflicts recognized at that time have tended to be progressively circumscribed, and this would stimulate agricultural productivity), has with existing power structures and allegiances resulted in measures to undermine and remove downgraded from ‘rights’ to ‘privileges’, or have been extinguished by subsequent further reduced access to resources to which peo- ple previously had access under the systems of previously functioning local governance and man- legislation and practices. By 1980, nearly 23 percent of India’s total land area overlapping and interpenetrating rights that have agement systems, and to replace them with politi- was under State management, while the rights of an estimated 300 million been common, particularly in parts of Africa (Neu- cal and bureaucratic structures and regulations. mann, 1996). This has not been confined to forestry, but it has resource users had become increasingly unclear (Poffenberger and Singh, 1996; had a particular impact in this sector because the Lindsay, 1994). The impact of such pressures and changes is evi- State has usually been unable to provide effective dent in the results of a seminal study of village control over large areas of forest. Existing systems common pool resources in the dry areas of India have consequently been undermined or sup- (see Box 1). In the 30-year period up to 1980, there pressed, but they have not been replaced by an were huge reductions in these resources. The effective alternative (Baland and Platteau, 1996; much-reduced areas of village land that remained Thomson, 1992). Comparable intrusions by governments occurred property rights linked to land clearance, and that cede were typically heavily degraded and under open elsewhere. In Africa south of the Sahara, failure by resources to , mining and other outside inter- access usage with little, if any, local control of use Particularly in Africa, indigenous local systems of colonial powers to understand the resource tenure ests (Perl et al., 1991; Southgate and Runge, 1990). being exercised any longer (Jodha, 1990). governance of forest and woodland resources have systems they encountered frequently led them to The expansion in the areas designated as State forests also been eroded because of a lack of clarity about impose changes that were detrimental to the func- in some of the main countries of Southeast Asia in The usual rationale behind the claim of the State the rights involved under overlapping and poorly tioning and evolution of existing resource manage- recent times reflects increasing pressures to exercise on forest lands has been that this ensures their sus- reconciled systems of national and community land ment systems, e.g. by classifying fallow and common physical control over upland areas for strategic rea- tainable use for environmental and economic out- law and custom (Bruce, 1999). In order to avoid pool land as unoccupied and as the property of the sons, either because of their importance as a land puts. The potential value of forests as a source of the high social transaction costs of organizing the State (Shepherd, 1992; Lawry, 1989). In South Amer- bank for surplus lowland populations, or because of rent to governments helps to explain the reasons management of small areas of forest in such diffi- ica, traditional systems of forest management and use growing concerns to prevent downstream damage for breaking down existing use and management cult and adverse circumstances, people increasingly have been undermined since the colonial era by poli- resulting from alleged overuse of upland areas (Pelu- systems, and the bias towards forest management leave management of local tree resources to the cies that encourage settlement by colonists, with so et al., 1995; Lynch and Talbott, 1995). systems designed to meet industrial rather than State (Shepherd, 1992; Lawry, 1989). 10 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 1111111111

Common property management BOX 1 Origins of the revival and use in dry areas of India of community forestry In the dry, rainfed plain areas of India, the main role of common property resources histor- n developing countries, despite the wide- ically has been to complement the highly variable level of private agricultural production. spread erosion of the size and quality of for- Traditionally, the sustainability of these common property resources was protected by an I est resources that rural people can draw array of controls, designed and enforced mainly at the local level. However, a major study upon, most people still rely on forest products to by Jodha has shown that in recent times there have been huge changes in the availability, some extent. Even in the Indian villages described in Box 1, from 84 to 100 percent of poor households management and use of these common property resources. still depended on the remaining resources on nearby village lands for much of their fuel and n the 21 villages studied across seven states, it was In the study villages, Jodha found that from 84 to 100 per- fodder, and for some of their food and income, at found that the area of common land had been cent of poor households depended on them for fuel, fod- the end of the period covered (Jodha, 1990). I reduced by an average of 42 percent in the 30 years der and food items (compared with no more than 20 per- prior to 1980-1982, while population per hectare in most cent of richer households). Poor households also obtained Though much of such use was achieved by ‘mining’ villages had increased at least threefold. This reduction from 14 to 23 percent of their income from products har- remaining resources, investigation has increasingly Local needs for fuelwood, grazing and other things need to was a result of land reforms (which led to abolition of a vested from common property resources. revealed the existence of at least vestiges of collec- be accommodated to halt deterioration of forests. number of levies and taxes on common property resource With increasing differentiation between the richer and the tive systems for managing use of woody resources, users), replacement of traditional village leadership with poorer people within villages has come increasing conflict coexisting with State and private rights. It has also elected village councils (which resulted in decreased regu- about the use to which the common property resources become clear that in some situations user groups approach to forest management, first by a number lation of common land use), expanded private landowner- should be put. However, some local management systems ship, expanded credit and subsidies for animals, and more have been trying to strengthen remaining existing of countries, and then by the donor community. The have survived, at least in part. From his analysis of 176 spe- marketing links for common property-related products control systems, or to create new arrangements to countries that pioneered the changes tended to be cific common property resources that showed at least one related (mainly milk, meat, wool, fuelwood, and various bring resources under more effective local control ones where governments had acknowledged that instance of local concern about their protection, Jodha sug- other bush and tree products). Of the communities that in (Messerschmidt, 1993). In addition, people were centralized management of forests had failed in its gests that small size, isolation and maintenance of tradi- 1950 had exercised controls, such as rotational grazing, found to be widely responding to a decline in access primary purpose of conserving the essential produc- tional social sanctions are village-level factors associated seasonal restrictions and watchmen, only 10 percent had with preservation of common property management. More to supplies of forest products by increasing the stock tive and protective values of forest resources. This such controls in 1980, while use of fines, taxes and fees specifically, greater distance from market centres, smaller of trees on their farmland (Arnold and Dewees, led to recognition that deterioration in the forest had ceased altogether. and more visible common property resources, less occu- 1997). condition could only be halted if action were taken The remaining area is typically severely degraded and pational change, less factionalism, less socio-economic dif- to accommodate local needs for fuelwood, grazing under open access usage, and the range, quality and ferentiation, and less dependence on state patronage were Therefore, in the past 30 years or more, there have and other things in some other manner. This analy- quantity of products collected have often been sharply found to be important in this respect. often been self-initiated local actions to stabilize use sis, and a perception of the large scale and immedi- reduced. Nevertheless, the rural poor are still heavily Source: Jodha, 1990 of forest resources or to increase supplies of forest acy of the problem, shaped the nature of responses dependent on the remaining common property resources. products. This has been paralleled by changes in the that concentrated on acting quickly to create new 12 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 13

supplies of forest products to relieve the pressures needs of the rural poor. Recognition, as a conse- , and can create additional supplies of Consequently, the very large-scale programmes that on deteriorating and threatened forests (FAO, quence of the increased attention given to the energy and other forest products, it does not recreate were often set in place to encourage and support tree 1978). sector following the 1973 rise in fossil fuel prices, many of the broader protective functions of forests. growing by farmers, in order to increase local fuel- that woodfuels were the principal source of energy It is rare for farmers to decide to plant trees for envi- wood supplies, often had disappointing results. Thus, the large-scale initiative taken by the South used by households to cook food, highlighted the ronmental reasons if they are not facing serious soil Interventions narrowly focused on just one tree- Korean Government in the 1970s to encourage vil- role of forests in meeting such needs. This added a loss or site deterioration. Trees in farming systems related issue, such as fuelwood supplies, were likely lages to create collective woodlots on their lands was humanitarian and developmental dimension to the are more accurately seen not as part of the forest to encourage tree growing where trees were not an stimulated by the perception that this was necessary earlier conservation concerns that more attention resource, but in the context of farm household appropriate component of the farm household in order to stop destructive use, by those in need of needed to be paid to meeting rural demands for livelihood needs and strategies. economy, or to induce growing of inappropriate fuelwood, of hill forests that protected downstream wood, and to doing so in a more sustainable fashion trees, or to require changes in the institutional or agricultural lands. Similarly, community forestry in (Wiersum, 1999; Arnold, 1992). The relationship of the perceived fuelwood short- social framework that could not realistically be the hills of Nepal stemmed from increasing concern age to farmers’ priorities also proved to be quite dif- achieved in connection only with tree growing about deforestation of watershed areas. The even ferent in practice from what had been assumed ini- (Dewees, 1997). larger Social Forestry programme in India had its AN INITIAL FOCUS ON tially. Fuelwood ‘gap’ analyses extrapolated present origins in a 1976 report of the National Commission consumption and supply patterns without recogniz- AFFORESTATION of Agriculture, which recommended that people be ing the various ways in which people actually adjust encouraged to grow trees on their village land and Much of the early effort to respond to these con- to decreases in fuelwood supplies, or the fact that farmlands in order to reduce the pressures on pro- cerns focused on creating farm and collectively fuel shortages are often due to constraints other duction forests caused by mounting rural demands managed woodlots. One reason advanced for this than shortages of wood (e.g. shortages of labour for fuel and other forest products, and by forest uses was that such could reverse or offset that can limit a household’s ability to collect fuel- such as grazing. In the same period, comparable ini- deforestation, and mitigate the environmental dam- wood). Also, tree growing always involves some cost tiatives included the Village Forestry programme age caused by the excessive removal of tree cover. in terms of land, labour and capital, and makes in Thailand, in forest areas heavily encroached by Another was that tree planting could help meet peo- sense only if it produces outputs of commensurate people seeking land to cultivate, and the Village ple’s needs for fuel, and other basic self-sufficiency value to the farm household. Where farmers were Afforestation initiative in parts of the United needs, at minimal cost. A third was the view that planting trees, these were species that would pro- Republic of Tanzania that were being stripped of trees could be a potential tool for resource-poor duce fruit, fodder, protection, construction timbers natural tree cover. farmers to help them stabilize and improve their or products for sale. Fuel, everywhere a low-value farm systems. Tree crops could help to increase out- commodity, was being supplied from lower-cost Such thinking within the forest sector was given put and generate income, and to secure a greater sources, such as existing woody material or agricul- added impetus by a number of major, broader degree of self-sufficiency, with low inputs of capital tural waste products, or as a by-product or co-product changes in development thinking and strategy. The and labour. of trees grown for other purposes. It became clear 1970s saw a shift in development theory and prac- that there were few situations where farmers had tice towards a greater emphasis on agriculture, In practice, it was found that while tree growing by been growing trees to use solely for fuel (Dewees, Many early community forestry initiatives focused only mobilizing the rural sector and meeting the basic farmers may be an indirect or direct response to 1989). on increasing local fuelwood supplies. 14 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 15

Consequently, the early efforts to increase locally for sustainable livelihoods (i.e. natural, physical, Social Forestry woodlot projects in India BOX 2 available supplies of tree products to meet subsis- financial, human and social capital), and on an tence needs of the rural poor by creating village or analysis of what is possible with a household’s exist- A major element of India’s Social Forestry programme in the late 1970s and 1980s was to communal woodlots often had results other than ing assets, the concept permits a more holistic and create woodlots on non-arable communal land, to be managed collectively by the user those originally intended. As is evident in the Social situation-specific approach to identifying the possi- community (panchayat) in accordance with rules prescribed by the forest department and a Forestry experience in India (see Box 2), this was ble role of trees and forest products and how tree- because the growing of trees in this way was not based solutions compare with alternative courses of management plan drawn up jointly with the latter. Benefits and costs were to be split between effective in providing subsistence products; because action. the forest department and the community. the change in land use deprived users of existing subsistence supplies of fodder, fuel, etc.; and As understanding grew of the nature of the relation- owever, the woodlots were usually established bodies from taking over and encouraged them to opt for because the resource created was often one from ships between people and the ways in which they by the state forest departments, and the village extending forest department management; and because which the poor could obtain little, if any, benefit. draw upon forest outputs in their livelihood systems, H lands to be planted were frequently transferred the small size of the woodlots, relative to local needs, Many woodlots failed, or were captured by interests the importance of products from forests, as distinct into the temporary control of the department for this pur- together with difficulties in ensuring satisfactory distribu- other than those they were intended to benefit, or from planted tree stocks, became apparent. As pose. Under forest department management, the projects tion of benefits, and uncertainties about their status and ended up being managed by default by forest approaches to rural development broadened out have primarily created tree stocks and wood products of access to the benefits, weakened local interest in them. departments, rather than by the user communities. from the earlier concentration on meeting ‘basic commercial value, with few intermediate products, such Villagers and panchayat bodies came to perceive the needs’ to a recognition of the importance of income as fuelwood and grass, which previously were harvested woodlots primarily as sources of communal income, in securing household ‘food and livelihood security’, from the areas and used by villagers. The woodlots, there- rather than as sources of produce to meet household sub- the importance of activities in rural fore, have had the effect of changing land use and shifting sistence needs. SHIFTING THE FOCUS TO incomes became more apparent. By the mid-1980s, benefit flows away from local subsistence users. The main THE NATURAL FOREST Consequently, though successful in increasing production surveys of non-farm sources of rural household benefit to the poor has usually been from the wage of forest products from many of the sites used, and also in employment created. As the limitations and shortcomings of the early income had shown that forest products production, generating a resource of considerable value to the com- focus on afforestation became apparent, recognition processing and trading consistently ranked among Though tens of thousands of woodlots have been estab- munities, the interventions did not have the intended out- grew that the approach of targeting particular needs, the three largest sources of employment from rural lished in this way, there has been reluctance on the part of come of involving local users, strengthening local man- such as fuelwood, needed to be replaced by an (Fisseha, 1987). The large amount panchayats to assume control of them. This was because agement capabilities, or creating alternative sources to approach centred on understanding the strategies and variety of wood and wood products traded control carried financial responsibilities that villages and meet their subsistence needs for forest products. In prac- panchayats have difficulty meeting; because woodlot tice, government involvement in resource management that households pursue in order to sustain their showed this to be a very important part of the over- management plans, village forest rules, etc. were often increased rather than decreased, and costs per unit of out- livelihoods. The term ‘livelihood’ comprises the capa- all value of forests in developing countries, and one complex and unclear, and required skills and experience put have been high. bilities, assets and activities required to achieve the that needed to figure more prominently in forest that panchayats do not possess; because continued Source: Arnold and Stewart, 1991 means for living; and a livelihood is sustainable when management and policy (FAO, 1987). involvement of the forest department discouraged local it can cope with, and recover from, stresses and shocks, and maintain or enhance its capabilities both The increased attention given to meeting rural now and in the future (Carney, 1998). By focusing needs through changes in the management of on the five different types of wealth that are needed existing forests and woodland was reinforced by CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 1717

reinforced by the results of valuation studies, which ucts, and by building on the sustainable systems of appeared to show that the potential income from use that local people often seemed to have created sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products (e.g. Posey, 1982; Redford and Mansour, 1996). could be considerably higher than timber income or Another was the growing strength of arguments than the income from agricultural or uses relating to people’s rights to be involved in decisions of those forest sites (e.g. Peters et al., 1989). and actions concerning them (Fisher, 1995). Recog- nition that forest management needs to be ‘partici- This thesis was interpreted as pointing the way to a patory’ moved steadily from passive interpretations form of forest management that could serve both of participation, requiring little more than that those conservation and development interests (Plotkin affected be informed of decisions made about them, and Famolare, 1992). One result was a considerable to more substantive measures involving local people number of initiatives to expand and provide markets in decision-making and, increasingly, in control and for more locally produced non-timber forest prod- management of the forests they drew upon. How- ucts, in order to tap more of this apparently sustain- ever, though this has resulted in a move away from ably harvestable wealth in tropical forests, by pursu- the previous top-down approach, in practice it has ing a ‘Conservation by Commercialization’ strategy tended to take the form more of devolution of (Evans, 1993). Many of these initiatives proved to responsibility for local forest management than of Tapping trees for gum-milk in . Several studies have argued that harvesting of non-timber forest products by local people is less ecologically destructive than timber harvesting. be based on insufficient understanding of the com- devolution of meaningful authority. mercial viability of the production systems in ques- tion, and have not yet emerged in sustainable form. In 1985, the Conference on Common Property growing environmental concerns about the conser- In the late 1980s, a much broader concept of man- In addition, as is addressed below in this publica- Resource Management organized by the US vation of forest biodiversity, and developments agement of forests jointly for conservation and devel- tion, it became increasingly clear that conservation National Academy of Sciences (NAS) provided related to the management of protected areas. At opment gained prominence. This stemmed from the and development objectives and practices usually another major stimulus to the move towards a the 1982 World Congress on National Parks, it was argument that harvesting of the non-timber forest do conflict, and that management for non-timber greater degree of local involvement in forest man- recognized that these could only be protected if products that rural people exploit and use is less forest products requires an understanding of the agement. Collective management of forests (and the conflicts that arose when people who relied on ecologically destructive than timber harvesting, and appropriate balance between the two. Nevertheless, other natural resources) by user groups was shown use of the resources in these areas were excluded therefore provides a sounder basis for sustainable these initiatives served to focus much more atten- to be viable and appropriate in certain circum- from them were addressed. This led to the devel- forest management. It was further argued that tion on the importance of forest products other than stances (NAS, 1986). Subsequent work provided opment of programmes to introduce new livelihood increased commercial harvesting of non-timber for- timber, and on their role in rural livelihoods. growing evidence, in a range of different situations, activities in, and adjacent to, protected areas that est products should add to the perceived value of of continuing, spontaneous indigenous efforts to would compensate those living in them for the loss the tropical forest, at both local and national levels, A number of other factors reinforced this increasing strengthen remaining existing control systems or to of use, and encourage them to participate in the thereby increasing the incentive to retain the forest focus on local management and use. One was recog- create new arrangements, in order to bring protection of the resource (Fisher, 1995; Wells and resource rather than clear it to use the land for agri- nition of the advantages to be gained by drawing on resources under more effective local control Brandon, 1992). culture or livestock. This argument seemed to be indigenous knowledge of the forests and forest prod- (Messerschmidt, 1993). Many of these were found 18 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 191919

sector as a source of revenue to national govern- down to the community level, was followed by a number of contemporary issues. Thus, it has been ments, thus diminishing their interest in retaining period concentrated on mobilizing users to create variously argued, by the different interest groups such strong control over it. A more widespread rea- new forests in order to address particular, perceived supporting it, that community forestry is: son for the increase in governments’ interest in shift- developmental and environmental needs. As assess- ■ an important contribution to sustainable rural ing more responsibility for forest management to the ment shifted from a needs to a livelihood basis, this livelihoods for large numbers of rural house- local level has been its relevance to the devolution gave way, on the one hand, to a focus on integration holds; and decentralization policies that many States were of trees and agriculture in systems and, pursuing in the 1990s, as part of strategies to bring on the other, to approaches based on collective or ■ a philosophical commitment to people’s partici- about structural adjustment and a reduction in the collaborative management of existing forests. Over pation in their own affairs, and to the principles size and the role of government. Transferring man- the period, top-down approaches have been modi- of self-determination and democracy; agement and protection responsibilities to the com- fied by steadily growing pressures to increase the ■ an efficient way of managing forests by harness- munity level can help offset the reduction in budg- participation of those involved. At the same time, ing the skills, motivation and labour of interested etary resources available to forest departments and, community forestry has moved from being a largely local populations; and A working with a farming association in Ecuador. in principle, it shifts control to a level at which it may experimental process, pursued on a project and pilot There have been steadily growing pressures to increase be carried out more efficiently. Such arguments were scale, to becoming a mainstream component of ■ a means of reducing the role of, and cost to, the the participation of local people in forest management. influential, for instance, in the moves to pursue many national forestry strategies. State of protecting forests and the conservation resource conservation in Africa through community values of forests. to reflect responses to growing shortages of forest management (Adams and Hulme, 1999). However, The rationale for devolving more responsibility for, products and other forest outputs of value to the much of what has been emerging in practice has and participation in, forest management from the The pursuit of such a diverse, and not necessarily user community, or to reflect increased pressures taken the form of joint management between gov- State to local users of outputs of that forest has by congruent, set of ideological and pragmatic consid- from outside interests to use forest resources that ernment and local user communities, rather than now been firmly established (see Box 3). This erations inevitably generates much debate (Brown, are still important to the community, and they were devolution of responsibility solely to the latter. should strengthen the rights of those for whom the 1999; Wiersum, 1999; Wollenberg, 1998), which is found to be where user communities are still rela- forest plays an important role in their livelihood further discussed in this publication. However, tively stable and cohesive. Increased recognition of strategies. Their involvement and proximity should there is general recognition that the effectiveness of the continuing role of forests as common pool result in more effective protection of the resource. community forestry, for whatever purpose, rests on resources, and of such local initiatives in manage- Community forestry by It is also consistent with the principle of ‘subsidiar- its relevance to rural livelihoods, and on being able ment, contributed to the revival in interest in local the mid-1990s ity’, according to which a central authority should to put in place functioning arrangements for gover- collective management that is reflected in recent only undertake tasks that cannot be undertaken at a nance that reflect this. The first of these key ele- government and donor initiatives of the kind dis- y the mid-1990s, in the 20 or so years more local level. ments is examined in more depth in Chapter 2. cussed below in this publication. since it had first become prominent, com- Examination of progress with different approaches Bmunity forestry had thus moved through a However, the commitment to community forestry in to creating governance systems appropriate to the It would appear that in some countries these shifts number of phases. An initial, exploratory phase, a particular situation tends to reflect the extent to main forms taken by community forestry is the sub- also reflected a declining importance of the forest which attempted to scale conventional forestry which it is seen as being important and relevant to a ject of Part 2 of this publication. 20 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 1: Historical overview 21

The rationale behind community BOX 3 involvement in forest management

the case with non-timber forest products) important single-interest industrial concerns or the interests erwise unregulated public services. Several writers safety nets. There is evidence that the development of that serve them. Despite frequent assumptions to the have emphasized the important roles that civil society the forest sector for single-purpose industrial usage contrary, biodiversity may well be enriched, instead of organizations can play in augmenting public ‘voice’ damages livelihood interests, shifts benefits away diminished, by the activities of forest dwellers. and acting as ‘voice surrogates’; because of the way from the poor, and disadvantages important cate- the forest sector impinges on many aspects of local ■ gories of forest users (such as women). Community COST-EFFECTIVENESS: In relation to efficiency con- life, it may be an important arena for the exercise of involvement in forest management, in which forests siderations, there may often be few alternatives to such public voice. involving communities in forest management. In many ■ play important roles in rural livelihoods, is likely to PROXIMITY: The local populations are the immedi- ■ instances in the developing world, there is very limited DEVELOPMENT PHILOSOPHY: Community forest ate custodians of the forest. They are the stakeholders lead to substantial changes in the ways forests are capacity for effective management of the forest management is likely to fit in well with the wider in closest touch with the forest, and are dependent on managed, ensuring the safeguarding and/or diversifi- resource by the public sector. Even where public sec- development assistance strategies of the international it in a wide range of ways. Hence they are best placed cation of their multiple benefits. The social security tor management is feasible, the costs of exclusive community. These give high priority to principles of to ensure its effective husbandry. component of community forest management may local participation, decentralization and ‘subsidiarity’ thus be significant. direct management by the State may be prohibitively (the view that decisions should be taken as close as ■ IMPACT: Their livelihood activities likewise have a high, and local management may be an important way ■ possible to the affected citizens), as well as to the very direct effect on the condition of the forest; thus, CAPACITY: In recent years, the management capacity of cutting costs. promotion of civil society, all of which are potential their involvement in its management makes sound of forest dwellers has been strongly promoted in ■ ADAPTATION: Growing recognition of cultural and benefits of community forest management. practical sense. social science literature, while that of governments has increasingly been questioned. Community roles in livelihoods diversity encourages an approach centred Source: Brown, 1999 ■ EQUITY: There may be important considerations of forest management have been well documented in the on local participation and contextual adaptation. equity and social justice in the exploitation of forests. past; equally, there is evidence from recent experi- Almost by definition, flexible and adaptive manage- Community-based forest management may be expected ence of community involvement that this can substan- ment cannot be delivered centrally, and local pres- to increase the resource flows to rural populations, tially improve the quality and condition of the forest, sures and interests must be brought to bear. leading to important effects on poverty alleviation and over and above the levels that governments are able ■ income distribution. to establish independently. GOVERNANCE: Involving communities and commu- nity institutions in forest management (a sector often ■ LIVELIHOODS: Local needs and interests should like- ■ BIODIVERSITY: Because of their interests in multiple- noticeably lacking in ‘good governance’) may help to wise not be ignored, particularly where forest prod- purpose management, local users are likely to be introduce discipline into the management of the sec- ucts provide key elements of livelihoods or (as is often much better conservers of biodiversity than either tor and offer significant checks and balances on oth- CHAPTER 2 Forests and rural livelihoods

ost past information about the forest products that local peo- ple harvest and use has been narrowly situation specific and M of limited relevance in understanding the broader role of such products in livelihoods. However, some recent exercises have focused on identifying patterns of people-forest interactions in different situations, and over time. The present chapter draws on findings from this work3 to examine three main facets of the interactions. The first is the nature of forest- derived inputs into livelihood strategies of different kinds, and how these are changing over time as people’s needs and opportunities change. The second concerns the changes that are taking place in forest and tree resources to

3 The principal sources are Townson, 1995a; FAO, 1995; Falconer, 1990; de Beer and McDermott, 1989; Falconer and Arnold, 1989; and other reports cited in these review studies.

CHAPTER 2: Forests and rural livelihoods 23 24 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 2: Forests and rural livelihoods 252525

which rural people have access. The third relates this information to different degrees in Box 4. In general, though, subsistence use con- (Cavendish, 1997; Ogle, 1996; Madge, 1990), the tinues to be widespread, even where people are poor usually derive a greater share of their overall of ‘dependence’ on such inputs, and to other features of the linkages that provide a becoming increasingly integrated into the market needs from forest products and activities. framework for examining what form of community forestry system and interventions economy. Also, the buffer role of the forest as a resource that people can draw upon during periods The activities engaged in by the poor are likely to be might be appropriate to each. of agricultural shortfalls or unemployment contin- labour-intensive, household-based processes, such as ues to be very important for many people. collecting and mat making. Many face weak market demand and strong competition. Such activities typi- In addition, ease of access to forests, low capital and cally generate low returns, providing little, if any, sur- of the social and cultural framework of those living skill thresholds of entry, and proximity to widely dis- plus to invest in livelihood improvement, and they are Forest products in within it. For some, the main importance of the for- persed rural markets for the products enable large often tedious and arduous. Therefore, they are likely changing rural est is that the energy released by the conversion of numbers of people to generate some income from to be abandoned as more rewarding and congenial forest to farm and bush is a major source of power forest products (FAO, 1987). Income from forest alternatives become available, or as rising incomes livelihood systems in society (Davies and Richards, 1991). Or particu- products seldom seems to account for a large share lead to displacement of the product in the market by lar areas may be maintained as sacred groves, or of a household’s total income, but it is often impor- ox 4 provides a summary overview of the forests, or individual species, both animal and plant, tant in filling seasonal or other cash flow gaps, in main features of the relationships have spiritual or other cultural significance. taking advantage of seasonal fluctuations in avail- B between forest outputs and rural liveli- ability of labour, and in helping people to cope with hoods, and the ways in which they are changing. Elsewhere, the importance of forest products is likely particular expenses or respond to unusual opportu- Forests nearly everywhere provide inputs into rural to be mainly in the way they complement other nities (see Box 5). Forest products can also provide households’ subsistence use, and into their agricul- sources of subsistence inputs and income. Though a source of ‘windfall’ income, as when a good crop tural systems; for many, they also provide a source of they often do not account for a large share of over- provides a valuable injection of cash, enabling peo- income. Access to forest or tree resources can also all household inputs, these inputs can be particularly ple to clear their debts or accumulate some capital. help rural households diversify their livelihood base important in bridging seasonal gaps, meeting partic- In addition, forest product activities may provide an and reduce their exposure to risk. ular needs, helping households tide themselves over important supplemental source of income that peo- longer periods of shortage, and maintaining agricul- ple can fall back on. People who live in a forest environment and who tural productivity. practise hunting, gathering and These activities can therefore be very important to are likely to draw heavily on that forest and its out- Some subsistence use is now declining, as house- the poor when they are unable to obtain income, or puts. In addition to providing a wealth of material holds move to a different livelihood stage in which sufficient income, from agriculture or wage employ- outputs of subsistence or commercial value, and the forest inputs have a lesser role. Some use is also ment, and few other options exist. Though it is often basis for rotational agriculture systems that depend declining because of pressures that make it less pos- the wealthier people in a community (with greater Women processing nuts that will be made into butter. on the ability of bush fallow to revive the productiv- sible for households to maintain the same level of resources to devote to forest product gathering and Surveys in six African countries found that small forest ity of the land, the forest constitutes an integral part use as a result of changes such as those summarized production) who are the most frequent users product enterprises are often run by women. 26 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 2: Forests and rural livelihoods 27

LIVELIHOOD INPUT CHARACTERISTICS IMPACTS OF CHANGE Forest outputs and rural livelihoods BOX 4

Income (cont.)

LIVELIHOOD INPUT CHARACTERISTICS IMPACTS OF CHANGE Many forest product activities have the following char- With increasing commercialization of rural use patterns, acteristics: there is easy access to the resource, with some low-input, low-return activities can grow. However, Subsistence and cultural low-capital and low-skill entry thresholds; they are others may produce ‘inferior goods’ and decline, some They are an integral part of their social and cultural Their importance is likely to decrease, but can persist in overwhelmingly very small, usually household-based, are displaced by factory-made alternatives, and others framework for forest dwellers. some uses (e.g. medicinal). activities; they are mainly low return; they produce for become unprofitable and are abandoned as labour costs local markets; they are engaged in by rural households rise. Gathered industrial raw materials tend to be For agricultural populations, forest products supple- They can become more important where farm output part time, often to fill particular income gaps or needs; displaced by domesticated supplies or synthetic ment or complement inputs of fuel, food, medicinal and/or non-farm income declines. They are likely to they have limited growth potential, but are very impor- substitutes. plant products, etc. from the farm system. They are decline in importance as government relief pro- tant in coping strategies of the poor, and are often par- often important in filling seasonal and other food gaps, grammes or new agricultural crops make it less neces- ticularly important for women (as entrepreneurs as particularly in hard times. Forest foods enhance palata- sary to fall back on forest resources, as incomes rise well as employees). bility of staple diets and provide vitamins and proteins. and supplies come increasingly from purchased inputs, or as increasing labour shortages and costs militate Some forest products provide the basis for more full- The activities are likely to prosper, particularly those against gathering activities or divert subsistence sup- time and higher-return activities usually associated serving urban as well as rural markets; as this happens, plies to income-generating outlets. with higher skill and capital entry thresholds and grow- an increasing proportion of processing and trading ing demand. activity becomes centred in small rural centres and urban locations. Agricultural inputs

Forests provide a starting-point for rotational agricul- Trees can become increasingly important as a low-capital ture and protection. On-farm trees also provide shade, means of combating declining site productivity, and as a windbreaks and contour vegetation. Trees/forests also low-labour means of keeping land in productive use (e.g. purchased alternatives, or as increasing pressures on of the proprietors and 41 percent of the total work- provide low-cost soil nutrient recycling and mulch. home gardens). However, increased capital availability household labour resources make such low-value, force in small forest product enterprises were Other inputs include arboreal fodder and forage, fibre and access to purchased products are likely to lead to labour-intensive activities no longer competitive. women, who dominated in grass, cane and bamboo baskets for storing agricultural products, wooden substitution of forest products by other materials (such Other activities are likely to be attractive only tem- activities and in forest products trade (Arnold et al., ploughs and other farm implements, etc. as pasture crops, fertilizer and plastic packaging). porarily, such as woodfuel production and sales 1994). Forest product processing may often be per- engaged in by immigrants or young men in the process formed at or near the home, allowing women to Income of clearing land in order to create their own farms. combine these income-earning activities with other Forest products help to diversify the farm household They are of continuing importance in coping strategies, household chores (such as child care), and gather- economy, provide counterseasonal sources of income, and in reducing household vulnerability. The characteristics of easy access to the resource ing of forest products for the market can often be and are a source of income in hard times. and low entry thresholds enable many women to accomplished in conjunction with other collecting generate income from forest product activities. Sur- activities. Such activities are often an important veys in six African countries found that 42 percent source of the income that women need to meet the 28 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 2: Forests and rural livelihoods 29

cost of feeding and clothing the family and their Changes in patterns other needs for cash; more than men, they can rely The role of forest products BOX 5 on forest-based activities for the generation of of supply of forest income (see Box 5). income in selected rural raw materials household situations

Expanding and growing forest product activities are learance for agriculture, destruction and more likely to be found where per capita incomes are degradation due to logging, and overuse rising, and where there is growing demand from rural of remaining forest and tree resources, and urban markets. Where this is happening, pro- C reduce the options available to local users. As mar- duction and selling of forest products increasingly ket opportunities increase the value of forest prod- shift from being part-time activities engaged in by ucts, de facto privatization by the wealthier and ■ A study in Sierra Leone found that the sale of fuelwood trading incomes with seasonal needs (e.g. the need large numbers of people to being more specialized more powerful users, or appropriation by the State year-round operations engaged in by a smaller part of provided the first cash income from land cleared for to purchase seeds, to hire labour for cultivation, and or industrial interests, can exclude many users from to buy food at harvest to be processed and sold dur- the population (Liedholm and Mead, 1993; rice production. Subsequently, fuelwood collection for access to what is left. Where reliance of rural peo- the market was concentrated in the off-peak agricul- ing the dry season). Many women traders generate Haggblade and Liedholm, 1991). As the production ple on wage labour is increasing, it is likely that they ture period, providing cash income during a period their working capital from cropping, gathering and and vending activities characteristic of such situa- are not able to devote as much labour to gathering when food supplies are generally at their lowest processing, in sequences in which one activity’s out- tions frequently require skill and capital, they are or trading forest products, effectively reducing (Kamara, 1986). put becomes another’s input (Leach and Fairhead, often not available to those who were previously access to more distant forest resources. 1994). engaged in the simpler forest product activities. They ■ Income from the collection and processing of babaçu are more likely to be captured by the wealthier and Combinations of these factors mean that rural peo- palm kernels in northeastern Brazil was shown to ■ In western Niger it was found that income from forest better-educated members of rural communities, who ple have often increasingly been concentrating their account for 39 percent of cash income and 34 per- products from the commons rose as a share of house- are responding to market opportunities rather than to harvest of forest products in areas of bush fallow cent of total household income during the seasonal hold income from 2 percent in the harvest season to 9 percent in the hot and rainy seasons and pressures to find some source of income. and farm fallow on their own lands, and on slack period in agriculture. Many of the poorer farm- ers were dependent on this cash for purchasing seed 11 percent in the cold season. Cash income from these resources they can create by growing trees on, or and other inputs for the new season’s planting (May sources was sufficient to purchase between It is therefore often necessary to be able to distin- adjacent to, their farms. In a recent study of popu- et al., 1985). 9 and 28 percent of the household’s annual caloric guish between the forest product activities that fea- lations in the forest zone in southern Ghana, for needs. The poorest third of households was more ture in the survival strategies of the very poor and instance, nearly half of those surveyed reported the ■ A study in the forest-savannah zone of Guinea found dependent on this source of income than the richest those that can help to increase the incomes of farm bush as being their most important source of that needs for fuelwood and poles are mainly met third, and women (for whom it represented 27 percent households operating in a more dynamic economic forest products, and more than a quarter drew from by-products of the agricultural cycle, and that of their income) were more dependent than men (for environment. This can be very important in deter- mainly on the farm. Some of the forest products that farmers sequence their wild plant collection and whom it represented 10 percent) (Hopkins et al., 1994). mining what support and intervention measures contributed most to household incomes, in fact, may be appropriate. A single region can contain proved to be by-products of farm activities, such as both stagnant and growing activities (see Box 6). palm wine and distilled spirit produced from 30 PART ONE: PEOPLE AND FORESTS CHAPTER 2: Forests and rural livelihoods 3131

oil-palm grown as an agricultural crop, and wood- duce on farm. Consequently, access to forests that Differences in performance of BOX 6 fuels from wood generated in clearing fields for are available as common pool resources continues to small woodworking and grass/cane/ cultivation (Townson, 1995b). be important for many rural households.

bamboo enterprise activities in Africa Often the process of clearing land for cultivation, In six countries surveyed recently in southern and eastern Africa which is followed by a fallow period, involves a measure of manipulation of the tree cover to favour Evolving patterns of (Botswana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland and Zimbabwe), an species and products of local value. In addition, the people, resource and estimated 321 600 people were engaged in small-scale grass, planting of trees by farmers is observed to be cane and bamboo production and vending activities, and 202 500 increasing nearly everywhere. As discussed in Chap- product interactions in small-scale woodworking activities. ter 4, this is done not only to maintain supplies of he main trends discussed above can be tree products as access to off-farm supplies summarized as follows. declines, but also to improve the efficiency with nterprise birth rates were very high, but so were The faster growth in woodworking enterprises reflects: which farm household resources are used (Arnold (a) a low-cost technology that allows units to expand and T closure rates, particularly in the early years of and Dewees, 1997). ■ Large numbers of rural households in develop- the enterprise. Employment in those enterprises upgrade incrementally by adding more and better equip- E ing countries are still subsistence users of forest that had survived had been growing at 30.6 percent per ment; (b) the improved efficiency that comes with increase Notable features of the changing context within or tree products. Though the role of such prod- year in woodworking, but at only 3.1 percent in grass, in unit size; (c) growth in urban as well as rural demand for their products; and (d) a high proportion operating in prem- which people presently use and manage forest ucts in their livelihood systems may often be cane and bamboo. However, only a minority of small for- ises outside the home in locations closer to markets and products are, thus, this progressive shift from for- declining, and though supplies often come from est product enterprises had grown at all. At the time of services. In contrast, grass, cane and bamboo activities are est to non-forest tree resources as a source of sup- managed tree stocks as well as from natural the surveys, about 80 percent of jobs existing in grass, overwhelmingly single-person activities operating from the ply, and the shift within forest resources to stocks forests, forests often continue to serve as an cane and bamboo enterprises came from new start-ups. home, and they produce products (baskets and mats) that that the individuals can control in conjunction important source, and as a reserve to be drawn In woodworking, in contrast, 55 percent came from are being displaced in their rural markets by alternative with their agricultural activities. Community on more heavily in difficult times. expansion of existing enterprises. Of those that did grow products. Their poor competitive position tends to be forestry can therefore have as much to do with by adding to the workforce, most grew only by small ■ Labour-intensive, easily accessed activities pro- aggravated by low skill and capital barriers to entry to agriculture and agroforests as with forests. amounts. Only in woodworking did a substantial share these activities, resulting in excessive numbers of produc- ducing simple, low-cost forest products can be (30 percent) of the growth in employment come from ers, intense internal competition and marginal returns to an important source of income in the survival However, where fallow cycles are declining, bush enterprises that developed from being very small to labour, and by lack of affordable technology options to strategies of poor households unable to obtain fallow and farm bush are also likely to be diminish- being intermediate in size. improve returns to labour. sufficient income from agriculture or wage ing as a resource. Moreover, the shift from forest to employment. However, these activities have Source: Arnold et al., 1994 farm as a source of forest products is only possible less potential to contribute to livelihood for those who have access to land and sufficient enhancement. resources to work that land. In addition, in many sit- uations, poor farmers still need to look to off-farm ■ Where per capita incomes are rising, such resources to help supplement what they can pro- labour-intensive, low-return activities tend to CHAPTER 2: Forests and rural livelihoods 33

The challenge for community forest management of new sources of supply from tree resources out- can therefore be manifold. In any particular situa- side the forest. In addition, as both needs and tion, different categories of user are likely to pos- opportunities are continuously evolving, it sess different combinations of assets and opportu- becomes necessary to try to devise management nities, and will consequently place different and governance systems that are not only appropri- demands upon the forest resource. It may be nec- ate to the present situation, but are also capable of essary to manage an area of forest to meet the adapting to future change. One of the questions needs both of those wishing to expand commercial that needs to be asked about the community activities and of those seeking to maintain subsis- forestry systems reviewed in Part 2 of this publica- tence and coping uses (and to do so in an equitable tion, therefore, is whether they are likely to be able manner). Managing for sustainable flows from to respond to the kinds of shifts in patterns of sup- forests may need to be harmonized with the growth ply and demand outlined in this chapter.

Women with medicinal plants in Guinea. Large numbers of rural households in developing countries are still subsistence users of forest and tree products.

give way to more productive and remunerative rise and competition intensifies, activities that gen- activities that meet growing and diversifying erate only marginal returns for those engaged in rural and urban demands. Production and sell- their harvest and sale are unlikely to survive, and ing of forest products thus increasingly shifts will persist only so long as the participants have no from being a part-time activity engaged in by better option. large numbers of people to being a more spe- cialized year-round activity that is carried out by These features and trends also have different impli- a smaller part of the population. cations for households that are literally dependent on the livelihood inputs from forests and trees, and These patterns can be modified in a number of ways for those that have alternatives and that use forest as, for example, where worsening urban poverty products by choice rather than by necessity. Though temporarily increases demand for low-cost forest the forest product activities to which they have products that would normally have been displaced access may provide little opportunity for livelihood in urban markets. Over time, however, though some enhancement, they can be critically important for forest products can be expected to become increas- the very poor, for whom they can be as important as ingly important, others will fall out of use. As a the potentials for income growth that forests and result, some forest product activities will become trees can provide to those able to benefit from such redundant and will decline. In particular, as costs opportunities. The assessment in Part 2 focuses on longer-running programmes that have acquired enough of a track record, and a sufficiently documented assessment of their record, to allow them to be described and evaluated with some confidence. Therefore, it should not be assumed that these case studies necessarily reflect the present state of community forestry as a whole. In some countries and regions, community forestry is at an earlier and more fluid stage. While it is likely that some of these newer programmes will develop along lines similar to the earlier, more established experiences discussed here, some involve innovative approaches that could result in community forestry that follows other develop- ment paths.

Part 2 It is evident that community forestry can take many different forms, involving different combinations of users, resources and institutional arrangements, which CONTEMPORARY FORMS can be organized, for purposes of presentation and analysis, in a number of dif- ferent ways (Wiersum, 1999; Byron and Arnold, 1999; Wollenberg, 1998). In the OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY present publication we use a classification that distinguishes four broad cate- gories of user/resource relationship.

PART 2 DEALS WITH community forestry systems that result, at least ■ Forests are managed by users as common property, through collective man- in part, from interventions by governments, donors and civil society agement and control. organizations to stimulate and support local management of forest and ■ There are several categories of users and stakeholders with different inter- ests in the resource requiring joint management and control. tree resources. These interventions encompass a wide variety of ■ Users obtain their forest product supplies largely from agroforestry sources, approaches, from minimal adjustments designed to improve the managed as part of farm rather than forest resources. enabling environment of existing systems and practices, to initiatives to ■ Involvement is through processing and trade of forest products, rather than bring about fundamental changes in favour of increased local owner- through management and use of the primary resource.

ship or rights. Box 7 contains a summary of the main characteristics of these categories.

34 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY 3535 Key characteristics of the main categories of community forestry system BOX 7

FORESTS ARE MANAGED BY USERS AS COMMON PROPERTY

Stakeholder groups Livelihood connections Community forestry features

There are homogeneous user communities, with shared Forests are central to the livelihood system, which has often been There is collective management and control, if assured of real empowerment and attitudes to resource use. historically stable but difficult to sustain in the face of current effective government support (e.g. against forest industry, encroachment, and coun- market and other pressures. tervailing sector policies such as settlement).

FORESTS ARE USED BY MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS WITH DIFFERENT INTERESTS

Stakeholder groups Livelihood connections Community forestry features

Multiple user groups have overlapping/competing claims Forests are of continuing importance in coping strategies of the Fragmented, internally differentiated user groups are likely to lack capacity to manage on the forests. This is the case both among local and other very poor. With growth, the poor risk losing access to the competing users unaided. Further work is needed to develop and support appropriate users and among different categories of local user; conse- resource because it passes into the control of wealthier or more management approaches. Incentives to local participation need to be matched to the quently there is a lack of shared attitudes towards powerful elements who are better able to exploit market oppor- changing role of forest products. Policy-based impediments may include tenurial resource use, and a potential for conflict. tunities, or to privatize forest land and put it to non-forest uses. change that threatens existing rights, and restrictions on smallholder harvesting and trading of forest products.

FOREST PRODUCTS ARE SUPPLIED LARGELY FROM AGROFORESTRY SOURCES

Stakeholder groups Livelihood connections Community forestry features

Tree growing is only available to those with access to land Farm trees can provide poor farmers with a low-cost means of Tenurial conditions that constrain (or appear to constrain) tree growing may need to that they can farm. It may also not be possible for share- enhancing site productivity, of diversifying to reduce exposure to be clarified or modified. Policy needs to focus more on matching supply with demand. croppers and other farmers with tenurial constraints. risk, and of meeting household needs with lower labour inputs. Impediments that restrict farmer access to markets (and that depress prices for their Commercial production of tree crops is more likely to be suited to forest/tree products) need attention (these include poorly functioning trading systems farmers who do not rely on the land for food, and/or farmers who and competition from subsidized supplies from State forests). have other sources of income.

PROCESSING AND TRADE ARE IMPORTANT SOURCES OF EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME

Stakeholder groups Livelihood connections Community forestry features

Small-scale forest products manufacturing and trade can These activities can be important components of coping strate- There may be a need to remove biases in favour of competing industrial and State pro- be available to the landless as well as to those with access gies of the very poor, but they often generate low returns and ducers. Different potential target groups have different support needs in order to to the land, to women as well as to men, and to some of poor growth prospects. More profitable activities often require progress (credit, training, etc.). It may be better to help people faced with declining the urban poor. skills and inputs not available to the poorest. Wage employment prospects in their current activity to move into more rewarding options (e.g. employ- in forest industry can help the poor move away from stagnant ment in logging may not prove sustainable). activities, if only temporarily. Source: Developed from Byron and Arnold, 1999

36 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY 3737 components in response to such patterns. This reflects the fact that collective or individual forms of organization of community forestry, and the management of forest or farm tree resources, introduce a number of very different issues that need to be addressed separately. Therefore, Chapter 3 first examines collective forms of community forestry, which encompass both management of the resource as common property by a group of users, and joint management by mul- tiple stakeholders. Chapter 4 then examines systems involving management at an individual or household level, such as trees in forest areas adjoining farmland, trees managed as part of farm resources, and trees for small-scale processing and trade. For each, the circumstances under which they have proved to be appro- priate, and the strengths and weaknesses of present and past support policies and practices, are assessed. Issues that affect community forestry as a whole, and that straddle both collective and individual forms, are discussed in the final part of the publication.

Selling palm fruits in Senegal. Tree and forest products often play an important role in local livelihood systems.

The literature on community forestry tends to focus primarily on experiences that involve some form of collective management of a forest resource by the local population. However, as is evident in the categories of user/resource relationship described above, and the discussion in Chapter 2, community forestry can equally involve activities on an individual, or on an individual household basis, such as tree growing on farms or small-scale processing and trading of forest and tree products. Moreover, there are no clear-cut boundaries between the different forms that community forestry takes. Many people who draw upon collectively used forest resources for some of their needs also create or maintain tree resources on their farms. Individual producers may also come together in collec- tive groupings, such as cooperatives.

In practice, the various forms of community forestry coexist and are often linked, and many community forestry support programmes contain several different

38 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY 3939 CHAPTER 3 Collaborative management The case for collective (and joint) management

ollective management regimes for forest resources can be appropriate when the demand on a resource has become so C great that it can no longer tolerate unregulated (open access) use, with the result that property rights in the resource have to be created, but other factors make it impossible or undesirable to allocate the resource to individuals (McKean, 2000). A common property regime can also emerge as a way to secure control over a territory or a resource, to exclude outsiders, or to regulate use by individual members of the community. As pressures on the resource increase over time, collective control may be replaced by private property rights or by government control, or control may collapse and be replaced by open access use.

CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 41 42 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 434343

Choice of management of forests as common property has in the past been strongly Attributes of common pool resources BOX 8 affected by arguments that it is inefficient, and unsustainable, compared with private and of users that are conducive to self-government property or State ownership. This argument was dramatically expounded in Garrett Hardin’s article entitled “” (Hardin, 1968), which was inter- ATTRIBUTES OF THE RESOURCE preted as postulating that overuse among those using a ‘commons’ was inevitable, ■ FEASIBILITY OF IMPROVEMENT: The resource is not so deteriorated that it is useless to organize, because each would seek to extract more than their share of the benefits, knowing nor is it so underutilized that there is little advantage involved in organizing it.

that the gain from doing so would more than offset the costs to them of this overuse. ■ INDICATORS: Reliable and valid information about the general condition of the resource is available at reasonable costs. Wide acceptance of this thesis contributed to the pursuit of land distribution policies ■ PREDICTABILITY: The availability of resource units is relatively predictable. that favour individual private landholdings, and to the justification of State control of ■ SPATIAL EXTENT: The resource is small enough, given the transportation and communication tech- forest resources. nology in use, to allow users to develop accurate knowledge of external boundaries and internal micro- environments.

ATTRIBUTES OF THE USERS In the past two decades, growing evidence has Three characteristics of attributes identified in ■ SALIENCE: Users are dependent on the resource for a major portion of their livelihood or for other vari- accumulated to show that, while this thesis can, Box 8 are of particular significance to understanding ables that are of importance to them. and often does, apply, it should not be held to be the scope for community forestry as collective man- of general application. In appropriate situations, agement (Ostrom, 1999; Arnold, 1998; Baland and ■ COMMON UNDERSTANDING: Users have a shared image of the resource and of how their actions users often prove to be able to create and sustain Platteau, 1996; McKean and Ostrom, 1995). affect each other and the resource. collective arrangements that avoid overuse. A ■ DISCOUNT RATE: Users discount the likely value of future benefits to be achieved from the resource at growing body of knowledge gained from research (1) The nature of the resource and its value to the a sufficiently low rate (i.e. they expect satisfactory levels of future benefits). into existing collective management systems, and users. There are resources that are more logically ■ DISTRIBUTION OF INTERESTS: Users with higher economic and political assets are similarly affected experience with programmes to support new sys- managed as a whole rather than as individual plots, by a current pattern of use. tems, has resulted in fuller understanding of the as, for instance, (a) where they need to be main- ■ TRUST: Users trust one another to keep promises and relate to one another with reciprocity. attributes of resources and users that appear to be tained on a scale large enough to function as a pro- conducive to the formation and functioning of ductive ecosystem; (b) where coordination among ■ AUTONOMY: Users are able to determine access and harvesting rules that will not be countermanded successful self-governing arrangements of this users may be necessary to deal with multiple uses by external authorities. nature (Ostrom, 1999). This information is sum- and externalities; or (c) where group control can be ■ PRIOR ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE: Users have learned at least minimal skills of organization marized in Box 8. the most efficient way of coping with the costs of through participation in other local associations or through learning about organizational methods of neighbouring groups. Source: Ostrom, 1999 44 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 45

monitoring porous boundaries and enforcement (3) A supportive policy and support framework. potentials, and constraints, from situations where Within forestry, co-management has become within those boundaries (McKean, 2000). Also, There is the willingness and ability of governments the government presence in forestry is weak. increasingly prevalent because it appears to offer, there are resources that make an important contri- to create a policy and legal basis that creates or among others, the following advantages to the bution to the livelihood systems of the users. Collec- reinforces the local rights with respect to forest In practice, collaborative systems range from situa- State. tive management has historically been particularly resources, that empowers the local institutions to tions where full control, and even ownership of the prevalent where forests have provided critically control and manage the exercising of these rights, forest, is transferred to a local body through a com- ■ It enables the government to continue to exer- important inputs into agriculture (e.g. providing and that authorizes the relevant government institu- munity forestry programme, to situations that do no cise a regulatory role (this is important where replenishment of soil nutrients through green tions to effect and support this transfer of responsi- more than create, or legitimize, limited local rights there are significant environmental externalities mulch or tree fallow), where livestock management bilities and rights. Of equal importance is the will- to particular forest product usages. Most lie some- associated with the use of forests or forest depends on access to woodland or forest (as in arid ingness of the political and administrative machin- where in between; with the State granting additional lands). Africa and Asia), or where forests provide important ery of governments to implement such changes in rights and powers, but often retaining ownership ■ dietary inputs (e.g. in regions without ways that transfer real power to community forestry and a share of the resource and benefits, and rights In State forests it transfers some of the livestock). The quality of the resource, and its groups, and not to thwart this by interpreting of approval and enforcement of the agreement for responsibility for, and cost of, forest protec- capacity to yield returns that are commensurate change in ways that effectively leave control in the such co-management. tion to local user communities, and also with the costs incurred in protecting and managing hands of forest departments and the local exten- enables the forest department to retain con- it, are also likely to be important factors. sions of governing political interests, or of industrial The arguments in favour of co-management, or joint trol over components of the resource that are or other external interests. management, by governments and resource users of direct value to the State (e.g. timber and (2) Collective capability for resource management. have become more prominent as it has become forest land). There is the presence of, or ability to create, a local The wide range of community forestry forms that apparent that often user communities and institu- ■ It can facilitate the provision of government institution able to effectively control and manage the have emerged in part reflect substantial differences tions are unable to take on responsibility for control support (e.g. investment, technical assistance resource on behalf of the community of users. Effec- in the importance of the factors outlined above in and management unaided, and that the alternatives and strengthening of local institutional capabil- tiveness or ineffectiveness in this respect can often the various situations. Governments still seeking to of continued State control or privatization are also ity) to user communities. be linked to the size of the group and commonality extend their political presence across relatively new unsatisfactory. The concept of co-management, of interests about the resource within it, the powers nations are likely to view transfer of authority over therefore, promotes the idea of trying to develop ■ It may enable the forest department to act as an to define membership and create and implement forest areas differently from those seeking to equitable partnerships, drawing upon the comple- adjudicator in disputes among stakeholders who group management rules vested in the institution, devolve responsibilities away from the centre. mentary strengths of forest departments and local have conflicting claims on the forest. and the availability of functioning conflict manage- Where forest resources are no longer of significant users. In principle, the government, rather than with- ment and resolution mechanisms. Much of recent revenue or strategic value to governments, the drawing from forest control and management in The danger is that, in practice, co-management may research and experimentation with collective com- potential for community forestry that increases the favour of local users, would reshape its responsibili- result in a situation in which government agencies munity forestry has focused on trying to clarify the share of benefits from forest resources that accrues ties to ensure the largest measure possible of involve- continue to exert too great a measure of control. To circumstances in which increasingly heterogeneous locally is likely to be greater than where they are still ment by the latter, and to ensure collaboration rather be effective as a vehicle for real community forestry, rural populations might be able to create and operate important centrally. Situations with strong, well- than conflict between the two (Berkes, 1997; Baland it must achieve the right balance between the main effective collective management regimes. entrenched forest departments present different and Platteau, 1996). parties involved. 46 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 47

laid in the colonial and postcolonial periods with the fact that areas available for community forestry Co-management varying degrees of State tenure and control over for- are concentrated in poorer forests, whereas any ben- in practice est and tree resources, and often over tree-bearing efits from richer areas that continue to be reserved land. Particularly in the high forest zone, timber-rich for industrial use are confined to transfers of some he four programmes, or groups of pro- forests have been important sources of government of the revenue generated from timber sales. grammes, discussed in this section revenue, dedicated to industrial rather than local T represent relatively long-established use. Progress towards arrangements for forest manage- and substantial examples of community forestry co- ment and control that favour local populations has management. They cover a range of different The move towards more participatory forestry began also been constrained in practice by difficulties in resource, user, institutional and policy combina- in the late 1980s, encouraged by donor interests in securing effective, representative and equitable tions. The first two represent government initiatives conservation and more sustainable management of control at the local level, and because of problems to increase local involvement in management of natural resources, and in community management of multiple users and poorly functioning local insti- State forests. The India programme reflects a situa- as a means of achieving this. For governments lack- tutions. In French-speaking countries, such as tion in which there is a strong, relatively well- ing the resources to administer large and remote Burkina Faso, Guinea, the Niger, Mali and Sene- resourced forest department, whereas the pro- areas, community forestry had the added attraction gal, the initiatives to decentralize forest manage- In West Africa, local forest management usually involves grammes in West Africa reflect a situation where that it could shift some of the cost of forest protec- ment to local groups have been strongly shaped by commitments, such as protection and planting, in exchange for rights and benefits, such as the right to har- this is not the case. In the other two examples, tion and management to communities, and has the codes and constitutions that set up levels of vest and sell forest products. changes have been effected that have resulted in a potential of reducing destructive actions of rural national, regional and local government, and by greater level of local empowerment, reflecting a populations that earlier felt excluded from access to electoral codes and technical codes such as land greater measure of local rights prior to the commu- forest benefits. However, the budgetary weaknesses tenure and forest laws, which between them are not independent of the government administra- nity forestry initiatives. In the case of Mexico, these that encourage forest departments to devolve determine who gets to make which decisions. The tion. The result is that local bodies tend to be changes have also enabled local users to become responsibilities for local forest management can way that these intersecting laws are interpreted responsive to the administration and the State, actively involved in industrial forestry. mean that they are unable to provide the support and operate in practice has often meant that rather than to their members. In English-speaking services needed to make community forestry decentralization of forest management has not countries, such as Ghana, traditional authorities are effective. resulted in the passing on of rights and powers of often stronger, a situation that reflects their role in FOREST CO-MANAGEMENT IN decision to representative local bodies. colonial strategies of ‘indirect rule’. However, chiefs WEST AFRICA4 The process varies from country to country, but usu- are often among the wealthier and more entrepre- ally involves contracts with community-level institu- Devolution in these countries has usually involved neurial members of the community, and their inter- Historically, much of the forest resource in the tions that set out commitments (such as provision of village chiefs or rural councils. However, chiefs, who ests can be more closely allied to the interests of region was controlled by traditional authorities, as labour for protection and planting) in return for are chosen by government-sanctioned processes, traders and loggers than to those of their constituen- part of broader systems of control of land and use of rights and benefits (such as the right to harvest and are often effectively part of the administrative sys- cy members. Elected local bodies are not likely to be land. In most countries, these systems became over- sell forest produce, and exemptions from fee, royalty tem. Though rural councils are usually made up of dominated by members linked to national political and licensing requirements). However, the benefits elected representatives, these often tend to be parties, but they generally cover quite large geo- 4 Based on Adams and Hulme, 1999; Brown, 1999; Leach, 1999; and Ribot, 1999. to participating communities are often limited by linked to national political parties or in other ways graphical areas; this makes them less than optimal 48 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 49

several different ethnic and cultural groups, which Due to these problems in achieving devolution that JOINT FOREST MANAGEMENT have markedly different interests with respect to delivers effective benefits to heterogeneous user IN INDIA5 local forest resources and land. Transferring owner- populations through existing institutional struc- ship or increased use and control rights to such tures, some countries have focused on granting The Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme in communities, where there are multiple conflicting legal recognition and decision-making authority to India provides one of the largest and more fully interests within the community, will not by itself smaller, area-based groups, as in the ‘village terri- developed bodies of experience with co-management ensure sustainable or equitable community forestry. tories’ approach in some French-speaking coun- in community forestry. It has been developed in a tries. This has been a positive departure from the category of State forest lands, Protected Forests, in Progress with devolved community forestry has also top-down, centralized approaches of the past, but which local rights were recognized, but which his- been shaped by a framework of forest department it is not necessarily more effective in communities torically had been managed by a large and well- rules and regulations that limit rights and benefits, where there is a diversity of interests among users resourced forest department, with extensive experi- and effectively circumscribe the authority and free- of local forest resources, and there is no mecha- ence of conventional territorial forestry. dom of action of the recipients. In French-speaking nism for resolving conflicts arising from this diver- JFM evolved from the Social Forestry programmes countries, policies dating from French colonial sity. Another approach, often project-based, has discussed in Chapter 1, which attempted to meet times concentrated control in the hands of forest been to encourage the emergence of smaller, more rural needs and to prevent overuse of forest departments and urban traders. Even where subse- homogeneous groups to which rights of manage- resources by encouraging the creation of village and quent devolution policies have transferred a meas- ment and use can be granted. The formation of farm tree resources on land outside forests. The ure of authority to local bodies, commercial forestry groupements forestiers can give them clearer and shift in focus to co-management in State forests activities are often still subject to forest department stronger rights, but within a framework of tighter A forester meeting with a community group in Mali to help occurred when the 1988 Forest Policy brought them develop a forest management plan. approval, supervision and even control. In Mali, for forest department regulations. As one observer has about a radical change in the priorities for the forest instance, an individual or group wishing to engage in noted, this can lead to “real tension over whether sector. The Forest Policy subordinated direct eco- commercial fuelwood harvesting must form an the approach represents decentralization or further nomic benefit to environmental stability and provi- for handling village forests. In practice, devolution organization recognized by the government and centralization of control over forests” (Leach, sion for subsistence needs, and it stated that forests either through leaderships or local government can apply to the forest department to develop a forest 1999). were not to be commercially exploited for industrial mean that control and benefits are passed to local management plan. This must be approved by the uses. For the first time, environmental stability and élites and outsiders. local government, if the forest is within its jurisdic- In brief, moves to develop forest co-management provision for the subsistence requirements of local tion, but the forest department retains powers of in the region have been constrained by a number people were given greater prominence than indus- The problem of securing effective representation of adjudication. In some other countries, the local gov- of factors that make it complex to implement with- trial use and generation of government revenue; the local interests is compounded by the highly differ- ernment does not even have the right of approval or out measures to deal with the presence, and dif- policy document included specific reference to pro- entiated nature of many rural populations. The rejection (Ribot, 1999). Forest departments can, fering interests, of multiple stakeholders. This sug- viding for the domestic requirements of “tribals and development of rural areas in much of West Africa therefore, continue to exert strong control, to the gests that, to be effective, community forestry may other poor living within and near forest”. has been heavily dependent on labour provided by extent that it is argued that community forestry can need at least as much support from the govern- groups that migrate from other parts of the region. It in practice increase rather than diminish forest ment as traditional forestry, though in different 5 Based on Khare et al., 2000; Kumar et al., 2000; Sarin, 1998; World Bank, 1998; Saxena, 1997; Hobley, 1996; and Poffenberger and is now not uncommon for populations to comprise department control. forms. McGean, 1996. 50 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 51

In June 1990, the Government of India followed ied considerably. In the original area, in the south- JFM has also been successful in the mangrove forest this up with a circular to state governments recom- west part of the State of West Bengal, where the areas in the southern part of the state, due to the pro- mending the adoption of JFM on areas of state for- underlying approach was first developed in the tection that it offers against flooding and erosion est land. The principal features of the circular were 1970s, there have been tangible results. This is an brought about by improved management. Much less the following. area where most of the land was previously a mixed progress was made in trying to extend the approach to forest dominated by sal (Shorea robusta) that had the northern region of West Bengal. There, the ■ JFM should be an arrangement between the been heavily cut for fuelwood, poles and other prod- forests are less severely degraded and contain sub- village community, non-governmental organiza- ucts. The process of resource degradation was stantial timber components of continuing value to the tions (NGOs) and the state forest department, depleting subsistence and income flows, and was forest department, but fewer non-timber forest prod- with management plans established and super- adversely affecting agricultural productivity. Under ucts of interest to villagers who have more attractive vised by the forest department, which has the JFM programme, villagers would refrain from non-forest alternatives available to them. the authority to cancel the agreement if it fuelwood cutting and grazing and take on more becomes dissatisfied with the way it is being responsibility for protecting the forest, in return for Thus, even within the confines of a single state, it is implemented. a substantially greater share of the proceeds from evident that the potential for collaborative manage-

■ Only people who are organized in village groups FAOPHOTO FO-0258/T. Hofer the restored resource. ment of this nature varies considerably. As a conse- specifically for are to be granted quence of such experiences, JFM is now coming to access and benefits (which cannot be granted to Case studies show that, under the programme, fuel- be seen less as a pre-set formula and more as a set individuals); anyone who has an existing claim to wood availability has increased, there has been a sig- of principles and a process, to be modified and forest produce should be given the opportunity to nificant improvement in the local environment adapted to local circumstances. Some states (and join. (including reduced erosion and improved water sup- some parts of individual state forest departments) plies), and there has been a reduction in seasonal have shown considerable flexibility and innovation ■ Beneficiaries should be entitled to usufructuary Gathering and selling fuelwood is often an important source of income for the poorest women in areas covered out-migration, suggesting that incomes from in interpreting and applying JFM. This is a conclu- rights to grass and minor forest products (and by the JFM programme in India. employment and from sale of non-timber products sion that needs to be underscored, because JFM has potentially to a share of the income from the have increased. Moreover, this appears to have been provided a model for co-management arrangements timber and other products sold by the forest of greater proportional benefit to many of the poor not only in India, but also in other countries, and department); grazing or agriculture is prohibited management and protection of forest lands in return (Pattnaik and Dutta, 1997). particularly in Africa. It is important, therefore, to (though grass can be cut for feeding to live- for rights to use specified forest products. In each, recognize that such approaches need to be designed stock, and fruit-trees may be planted). the local vehicle for implementing JFM has been The approach has been most successful in villages to fit the particular characteristics of each situation. some form of Village Forest Committee (VFC), set ■ Only degraded forest areas in Protected Forests bordering extensive tracts of degraded forest land, are eligible. up for this purpose. where the forest-to-household ratio is relatively high, Some of the issues that have arisen are summarized there are ethnically homogeneous communities pos- in Box 9. Some relate to difficulties in ensuring suffi- By 1997, 17 states had adopted such collaborative Not surprisingly, in such a large and diverse country, sessing local forestry knowledge, and benefits accrue cient incentives to local participation in JFM. Pursuit programmes involving local communities in the the results of applying the JFM approach have var- from minor forest products at a relatively early stage. of sustainable forest management usually means 52 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 53

restricting or prohibiting existing gathering or harvest- Some issues that have arisen during implementation BOX 9 ing activities that are important to some of the poor of Joint Forest Management in India members of the community, at least temporarily. Though subsequent management of the forests can be structured to favour species and products of local value, the resulting changes in the composition of RESOURCE FACTORS incentives for participation away from forest manage- ■ There is no national legislation: the 1988 Forest Policy protected forests are likely to have different impacts ment, and it risks diverting people from other activi- is a non-statutory and advisory statement issued by ■ Restriction of JFM only to degraded forests limits the on different categories of user. Even in the generally ties that may provide a more even flow of benefits). the government, and it can be challenged in courts of potential benefits users can obtain, which can reduce law. State-level JFM programmes are embodied in successful experience of southwest West Bengal, fuel- their commitment to forest management. ■ Management plans developed by forest departments administrative notifications, and they do not have the wood headloaders, among the poorest in most com- for tend to require forestry skills, reducing ■ Pursuit of conservation usually means restricting or firm legal basis that they would have if they were munities, did not share in the increase in benefits the potential for user participation in the planning prohibiting existing gathering or harvesting activities included in forestry legislation proper. (Hill and Shields, 1998). Unless measures are taken process. that are of importance to sections of the poor. Subse- to offset the negative impacts of the changes it brings quent changes in the composition of protected forests about, the introduction of JFM may, therefore, be can have a detrimental impact on the poorest and VILLAGE FOREST COMMITTEES REVENUE SHARING AND ACCESS TO detrimental to the most vulnerable in the community. most vulnerable in the community, unless measures AS THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTING INCOME are taken to offset the impacts of the changes. ORGANIZATION ■ VFCs in some states get only small shares of the rev- In addition, exclusion of richer and more productive ■ If protection through JFM is introduced only to individ- ■ Some VFCs tend to be dominated by the local élite, enue, and forest departments can be slow to transfer areas of forest limits the potential benefits users can ual communities and forest areas, the pressures of and consequently may not adequately represent the these funds to them. obtain. In some areas, the forest available for JFM overuse are likely to be transferred to other areas. interests of some of those most dependent on forest ■ JFM regulations can mean that some revenue that pre- has proved to be unable to generate benefits com- products. ■ A focus on producing plantation products can mean viously accrued to gatherers now has to be shared mensurate with the costs local people are being that the benefits local people obtain from forests can ■ Where a VFC exists just as a committee of the forest with the VFC and the forest department, and product asked to bear. In some JFM programmes, therefore, shift from products that help meet immediate subsis- department, without links with the panchayat, or flows previously used to meet subsistence needs may additional benefits have been introduced. These can tence needs to commercial products that can be sold, without a recognized legal status, it may lack authori- be diverted to sales. take the form of wage employment in forest depart- and generate income, in the future. (Creating planta- ty in dealing with the intragroup and intergroup con- ment activities, provision of services such as ■ Regulations encouraging and enabling wide member- tions can also displace present grazing and gathering flicts that JFM can generate. ship in the VFCs can mean that people join just to improved roads and water supplies, and provision of users.) ■ The need for self-initiated forest protection groups to share in the income accruing to them. financial and technical support to self-help groups to ■ Plantations can create important benefits from bring their procedures into line with those of JFM, enable them to develop non-forestry livelihood ■ JFM areas are not exempt from existing regulations employment and wages in their early years, but it can in order to benefit from the legitimization of their enhancement activities. However, questions arise as that require producers of non-timber forest products be difficult to provide a continuing flow of benefits in rights to use the forest that this would bring, can lead to how sustainable such measures can be. to sell to government forest corporations and other the years between the establishment and harvesting to a considerable reduction in direct benefits to their authorized organizations. phases (employment as a benefit can also distort members. Issues also arise over the distribution of costs and benefits among the forest department, the VFC and individual members of the committee. Bringing 54 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 55

user within a community (often with particular protection agenda rather than the interests of vil- In 1978, the government passed legislation enabling concern about providing an effective venue lage members. However, recent studies increasing- substantial amounts of public forest land in the where women users can express their con- ly show that, at least in the more progressive state Middle Hills to be handed over to local communi- cerns); programmes, JFM has achieved considerable ties to manage, in recognition of the practical diffi- progress in moving towards forms of implementa- culties of managing the country’s dispersed forest ■ conflicts that arise with prior users of the forest tion that are more responsive to local needs and resources through the forest department. Local who have been excluded from membership in concerns. In the process, there has often been a management was to be achieved through the the committee; marked improvement in the relationships and panchayats, the lowest level of political and admin- understanding between and local people istrative organization, which would enter into agree- ■ how to avoid ‘free riders’, people who become FAOPHOTO Bizzarri 19476/G. (Jeffery et al., 1998). ments with the government to manage local areas members of the committee solely to get access under agreed forest management plans. to the income and other benefit flows it con- trols; and HILL COMMUNITY FORESTRY Initially, progress was slow. Villagers were suspicious ■ that it was just another way of abrogating their cus- the nature of the relationship of the VFCs IN NEPAL6 (which are recognized only by the forest depart- tomary rights. Procedures were cumbersome, and An important issue facing forest protection committees is ment) with other community institutions, par- In the Middle Hills of Nepal an unusually strong sys- panchayats usually proved to be unsuitable bodies for how to create effective venues where women users can ticularly the panchayat system of local-level tem of co-management of community forests has undertaking local forest management, as the areas express their concerns. political and administrative institutions. evolved, well backed by legislation, in an area where they administered seldom coincided with user group there remain high levels of dependence on forest boundaries. Though forest management committees Perhaps the most fundamental issues are those products and well-entrenched traditions of self- were formed, they seldom functioned as representa- production of more valuable products under JFM concerning the balance between forest depart- sufficiency. Historically, hill forests were controlled tive discussion and decision-making bodies. regulations can mean that some revenue that previ- ments and villagers in the functioning of JFM. The under various forms of tenure, some feudal, some in the ously accrued to gatherers now has to be shared state retains legal title to the forest areas allocated name of the State, and some communal. As a result of Following passage of the Decentralization Act in between the forest protection committee and the to JFM, and specifies which areas may be included. the overthrow of the feudal system in the 1950s, the 1982, responsibility for management began to be forest department. Some states have acted to reduce The VFCs are initiated by the forest department, forests of feudal owners were brought under the control transferred to forest user groups, incorporating fea- this disincentive by substantially increasing the which assigns a forest department staff member to of the State, under the Private Forests Nationalization tures of the indigenous control and management share of the revenue that goes to the village com- the committee, supervises the application of their Act of 1957. Where local leadership was strong, more systems that many communities in the Middle Hill mittee. operational rules, and can dissolve them at will local groups appear to have taken steps to bring the for- areas were already practising. With the abolition of (without compensation). The JFM arrangement is est areas that they used under their own de facto com- the panchayat system in 1990, more authority and Other problems relate to the presence of multiple consequently one that is ultimately controlled by munal control during that period, in order to secure responsibility were progressively devolved to these stakeholders with overlapping or conflicting inter- the forest department. There is thus a danger that, their continued access to them. groups. These new institutional formats were for- ests. Issues include: in practice, JFM could result in an extension malized in the 1989 Master Plan for the Forestry ■ how to create forest protection committees that rather than a devolution of forest department con- 6 Based on Shepherd and Gill, 1999; Shrestha and Britt, 1997; Malla, Sector, and the user group approach was given legal 1997; Gilmour, 1997; Hobley, 1996; Shrestha, 1996; and Gilmour are representative of the different categories of trol and influence, and could serve to promote a and Fisher, 1991. authority in the 1993 Forest Act. Ownership of the 56 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 57

land remains with the State, but trees legally belong network organizations. The largest network, the nity forests, and could be disadvantaging some of opportunities and alternative livelihood opportuni- to forest user groups, though the State reserves the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal those users who drew most heavily upon the com- ties for some can increase internal differentiation right to take back possession of the community for- (FECOFUN), with more than 1 000 user group munity forests. A challenge to the system at present, within FUGs, leading to conflicts over objectives to est if the terms and conditions of handover are not members, is taking on a negotiating and mediating therefore, is to encourage more productive commu- be pursued in managing their forests (e.g. disagree- met. Management control rests solely with the users role, and is providing members with some services nity forest management. ments over whether income from community of the resource, who now develop their own opera- previously provided by the forest department. forests should be distributed to members or spent tional plans (which have to be approved by the for- The considerable measure of success of community on community welfare). It is too early to say how est department), set the prices at which the produce Issues still arise, both within user groups and among forestry in hill areas of Nepal evidently reflects both these developments will evolve. However, the fact is sold, and determine how surplus income is spent. them, and with the forest department. Concerns well-focused and well-delivered government inter- that user group forestry is by now well established, have been expressed about several issues: possible ventions, and also the fact that the hill areas of the and is growing so vigorously, encourages the idea By January 2000, there were 8 900 registered forest domination of user groups by local élites; the ques- country demonstrate many of the resource and user that it will be able to adapt to such changes. user groups (FUGs), managing 652 000 ha of forest, tion of whether women are properly and effectively attributes favourable to this form of governance. and many more were waiting to be registered. User represented within groups; potential conflicts over Forests are very important to the functioning of hill groups are now coming together and forming larger responsibilities between FUGs and the evolving sys- systems; they provide fodder and bedding for the COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF tem of local government bodies with overlapping livestock that are critical to hill agriculture, fuel and FORESTS IN MEXICO7 mandates; and recent moves by the forest depart- construction materials, and sources of income. Both ment to increase the level of control its staff can richer and poorer among users have historically had The recent experience of Mexico in developing exercise over management decisions in user group a shared interest in these outputs from the forest stronger and more effectively participatory commu- forests. Nevertheless, the Nepal experience has and, as a consequence of their isolation, many hill nity forestry institutions and practices has been been encouraging; advancing democratic manage- communities have a long history of managing their among the most advanced and important, involving ment of forests by local users is to be found in most local resources. resources that often have the potential to generate situations, giving it a strong institutional basis and substantial economic benefits locally. Much of the bringing about an attitudinal shift within the forest However, the hills are being exposed to changes in country’s forest resources (up to 90 percent in some department towards facilitating local efforts. these attributes. People are migrating to take advan- states) is on community land, and 17 million of the tage of employment opportunities elsewhere; the country’s poorest live in these forested areas Moreover, where user group management is active, hill areas are gaining access to markets and supplies (Wentzel, 1999). Rights to these lands were granted , overgrazing and forest fires have usu- of purchased goods; and children are spending more to communities (ejidos) after the 1910 revolution. ally declined, and the condition of the managed time in school. These are some of the changes that Arable land was typically assigned to individuals, forests has often improved. This has generally been are altering the conditions that have favoured col- but forest and pasture land was held in common. achieved by user groups that adopt conservative, pro- lective management of local forests. With less Ejidos owned the forests, but were not permitted to tective management practices. Concerns have arisen labour available on farm, more marginal agricultural sell or transfer the land. that the resulting reduction in harvests by compari- areas are being withdrawn and are often recolonized son with earlier practices could mean that pressures by, or planted to, trees, thus creating sources of tree Villagers in Nepal meeting to decide what kinds of trees to 7 Based on Taylor and Zabin, 2000; Chapela, 1999; Wentzel, 1999; plant. are being diverted to areas of forest outside commu- products nearer to the home. Expanding market Landell-Mills et al., 1999; Richards et al., 1995; and Richards, 1992. 58 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 59

However, in practice, these community forest The technical assistance functions previously A new in 1992 greatly reduced gov- other comparable experiences elsewhere in the resources were controlled by the government, assumed by the government were decentralized, and ernment involvement in forestry, not only removing country, indicate that the earlier radical expansion of which granted logging concessions to private sec- the role of the State was reduced essentially to one of unwieldy bureaucratic regulations but also eliminat- peasant participation in forest management and con- tor and parastatal forest industry companies. The supervision and support. Ejido organizations that took ing subsidies and technical assistance to community trol often resulted in incomes being raised, and for- members (ejidatarios) of the ejidos benefited very on management and operational roles were encour- enterprises. Provision of technical services to com- est loss being slowed down. However, the subse- little, as regards both income and employment. A aged to participate in cooperative federations set up munal landowners was privatized, and ejidos had to quent changes in favour of market liberalization have nominal stumpage fee was paid into a community to provide technical and organizational support, par- contract such services from private contractors or opened the way for new types of economic organiza- development fund administered by the Ministry of ticularly technical assistance, marketing and liaison their forestry associations. Forest management tion within ejidos, and transfer of technical functions Agrarian Reform, but little was transferred to the with government. Initially, government provided con- requirements were to be enforced through harvest- to the private sector, which tend to weaken forestry ejidos. Because it generated so little benefit for siderable subsidized support to these ‘forestry civil ing permits, subject to the approved management civil societies’ ability to perform delivery, advocacy them, the concession system in effect pushed eji- societies’, as part of its broader efforts to actively plans, and a network of forestry associations (UNO- and regulatory roles. In many situations, there is a datarios towards conversion of forest land to agri- encourage and help ejidos to assume responsibility for FOC) to promote sustainable forest management. shift away from community control towards private culture and animal husbandry. This form of man- production. By the early 1990s, 40 percent of forests interests and market-based initiatives. There are agement was thus encouraging deforestation with commercial value had management plans for Market liberalization also exposed community concerns that this is a process from which only some rather than conservation. extraction; of these, 40 percent sold timber standing, enterprises to global competitive forces. Competi- ejido members are likely to benefit, and that could another 20 percent extracted and sold timber them- tion with low-cost imported timber as a result of the disadvantage the poor. Control over natural resources became a compo- selves, and another 20 percent had . North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) nent of peasant unrest (Castanos, 1994). In the has made it difficult for many of them to operate mid-1970s, peasant organizations, supported by By the early 1990s, demands for market liberaliza- profitably. Lack of business and marketing skills policy reformers within government, campaigned tion had become another powerful force for change within ejido forest enterprises, and lack of adequate Conditions that favour to change the system so they could participate in the country and in the forest sector. Following capitalization at the ejido enterprise level, are other more directly in control and exploitation of their modification of Constitutional Article 27 in 1991, problems they confront. In recognition of the diffi- collective and joint forests, and benefit more substantially and sus- the 1992 Agrarian Law allowed ejidos to divide com- culties ejidos face as a result of the shift from rural management tainably from the proceeds. In the mid-1980s, new munal land that could be purchased and sold, and development to market liberalization policies, a gov- legislation, culminating in the 1986 Forestry Law, permitted groups of ejidatarios to use their share of ernment financial incentive plan (PRODEFOR) hough devolution to collective manage- transferred decision-making power over forest har- the communal resource to engage in commercial was introduced in 1997 to facilitate measures such ment at the local level has attracted vesting to the ejidos, on condition that they meet activities, and also to enter into joint ventures. Con- as making management plans, and providing access T much attention over the past 15 years or sustainable forest management requirements cerns have been raised that this could undermine to information and training. so, relatively few studies have focused on under- (such as a management plan drawn up by a community-level forestry, encouraging ejidos to con- standing the conditions in which it may actually be forester), to be monitored by government Units of vert forest land to other uses, but actual change of The impact of this succession of changes on one of accomplished successfully (Agrawal and Ostrom, Conservation and Forestry Development this kind has been limited. However, it has encour- the most highly developed groups of ejido forest 1999). Similarly, little scholarly work addresses the (UCODEFOs). Stumpage fees, set by the market, aged more ejido involvement in logging and process- management enterprises, in the tropical State of issue of when co-management is feasible (Berkes, were to accrue directly to the ejidos. ing, and in investment in plantation establishment. Quintana Roo, is summarized in Box 10. This, and 1997). Therefore, there are few clear explanations 60 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 61

as to why, in practice, devolution does not neces- Plan Piloto Forestal, Quintana Roo, Mexico BOX 10 sarily ensure more equitable access to forest ben- efits, or lead to sustainable forest development, or resulted in lower returns from forestry and has reduced result in satisfactorily functioning institutional In the forest areas of the tropical State of Quintana Roo, there has been a long history of the incentive to ejidos to pursue sustainable forest man- arrangements. exploitation for chicle and , and other timber and non-timber forest products. An agement. Those associations and ejidos with a poor forest earlier pattern, in which small logging contractors worked with local communities (ejidos), resource base have often found it difficult to maintain their In assessing what lessons might be learned from members’ interest in forest management, which conse- was replaced in the 1950s by a 30-year concession to work 550 000 ha of these forests; the experiences such as those outlined in the previ- quently has declined in favour of agriculture. concession was awarded to a large parastatal company, Maderas Industriales de Quintana ous section, the following discussion is organized Market-oriented pressures to convert ejido enterprises around three issues that often appear to be cen- Roo (MIQRO). In the early 1980s, as this concession was approaching its end, a state gov- into modern business enterprises have put a premium on tral to the success, or lack of success, of co- ernment supportive of rural development cancelled it and turned over responsibility for efficiency, and this can conflict with the welfare function of management of forest resources in practice. management of the forests to local ejidos. ejido institutions. Some ejido forestry enterprise organiza- tions have taken advantage of the opportunities provided (1) Incentives for rural populations to conserve by the 1992 Agrarian Reform for new forms of organizing and manage their local forest resources are n 1982, a Plan Piloto Forestal (PPF) project was set up, substantial benefit flows to member ejidos. This is a large forestry activities, and have reorganized as self-contained often weak, or are offset by substantial initially to support ten ejidos that had progressively group, and some of the larger member ejidos have been semi-autonomous work groups, each of which is allocated disincentives. I taken over responsibility for management and able to invest in processing. The second association is in a proportion of the forest resource, in order to address exploitation of their forest resources. Subsequently, the an area with a less mahogany-rich resource, and with these efficiency problems. Concerns have arisen that this (2) Governments often fail to provide the local coverage of the plan was expanded, and by 1995 about fewer members, and it has had to focus production and could lead to division of the forest land, and that, together organizations to which they devolve responsi- 50 ejidos covering 500 000 ha were involved. Each ejido marketing on railway sleepers, a less remunerative prod- with the exclusion of non-group members from forest ben- bility with sufficient real authority and sup- created its own operational cooperative. In organizing and uct. The last two associations have fewer ejido members efits, it could undermine the unity of the ejido. running their operations, many ejidos have been able to and even fewer timber resources, and they have had to port to enable them to exercise their rights Smaller associations, with lower-value resources against draw on a long experience with chicle cooperatives. The focus on developing other forest-based activities, such as and manage their forests effectively. which to charge costs, are also finding it difficult to fund general assembly of the ejido allocates jobs and decides on agroforestry and non-timber forest products. Because technical assistance, now that the earlier government sub- (3) User populations can face constraints and disposition of revenue. This can give rise to conflicts their leaderships are elected, the associations have inter- sidies have been withdrawn. In addition, some richer problems that make it difficult for them to between business imperatives and the socio-political con- nal credibility and can help resolve internal social and ejidos are leaving their association, and are contracting organize and function satisfactorily as collec- text of the ejido; there can be pressures to distribute profits political issues, and they can push through unpopular technical assistance and marketing services from private- tive managers of local forest resources. to members, or to meet non-forestry needs of the commu- measures such as reduction in allowable cut. Therefore, sector organizations in order to avoid subsidizing poorer nity, rather than to reinvest in the forestry enterprise. As a they play a very important role. ejido members of the association. The associations are result, the latter have often been undercapitalized. Rotation In its early years, the PPF generated rapid increases in consequently becoming weaker and less effective, as the of jobs, in accordance with traditional practices, encour- INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES local benefits. Active marketing increased prices and broader development focus shifts towards approaches ages social cohesion but can weaken business efficiency. The issue of incentives and disincentives for user expanded the range of species sold, ensuring larger that are more driven by market forces. Four cooperative forestry civil society associations were income flows. In addition, deforestation slowed down groups to engage in collective management of local Sources: Taylor and Zabin, 2000; Wentzel, 1998; set up, covering different areas. The first covers an area sharply. More recently, there has been a decline in the Richards et al., 1995; and Richards, 1992 forests revolves around the questions of whether with relatively rich mahogany forests that have provided quantity and quality of the resource available, which has sustainable forest management will produce 62 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 63

sufficient benefits for the participants to make this than areas that do not have these attributes. The forest resource in the future (Byron and Arnold, worth while and, if so, whether management is best strength of community forestry in mahogany-rich 1999). In a recent study in an area in western achieved through collective arrangements. In this areas in Quintana Roo, and in sal-rich areas of West Malaysia, for instance, it was found that the number section, three aspects of this issue are examined. The Bengal, relative to neighbouring areas that are less of forest species used or sold as food, medicines, etc., first is the potential of the resource to produce forest well endowed with resources, emphasizes the had declined during living memory from 279 to 71 product flows, and the question of whether these importance of resource quality and abundance in (Lim Hin Fui and Jamaluddin Ismail, 1994). Incen- compare favourably with alternative uses of the land. encouraging users to commit themselves to local tives to engage in collective control and management The second is the impact of regulatory constraints, in management. of a local common pool forest resource are evidently particular those associated with conservation of the likely to become weaker as the role of its products in resource, on the cost-benefit balance. The third is the This suggests that the widespread practice of local livelihood systems declines in this way. impact of growing exposure to market forces, in par- restricting community forestry to degraded or poorer ticular the impact on the choice between collective areas of forest has often weakened its attractiveness Benefit flows to local people can also be reduced by and private forms of management. to local users. Though programmes such as JFM in government regulations and practices that reserve India can often improve the quality of the resource significant shares of the benefit flows to the State. An important advance in community forestry in Latin Amer- through enrichment planting on the degraded areas This can take the form of revenue-sharing arrange- Adequacy of benefit flows from ica has been the inclusion of timber in resources available that are available, and provide wage employment in ments, or imposing stumpage charges or other forms to communities for exploitation. a forest resource so doing, issues arise as to whether this can provide of taxation, or requiring local producers to sell their Communities are likely to be prepared to bring a a sufficiently valuable resource to sustain local produce through government marketing bodies, as local forest resource under management for forest interest. Queries have also been raised as to has been the practice in parts of India. Or, as has impose costs on local people that reduce their products only if this appears to offer greater benefit whether those who are most affected by the change often happened, forest departments may retain con- incentive to become involved. Allowable harvests to them than other uses of the land on which the share proportionately in the benefits (Hill and trol over the timber or other important commercial may be reduced and the structure of benefits may forests are located. Where rural development has Shields, 1998). Another concern is whether wage product components of forests allocated for joint be changed, as the composition of the forest been based on the expansion of the area under agri- income from forest department work really creates a management. In contrast, an important feature of changes under management. In fact, it is difficult to culture, it is more likely that forests will be cleared local sense of involvement and commitment to sus- the recent advance of community forestry in Latin find programmes that have not had at least a transi- rather than conserved and managed. tainable forest management, or whether it is merely America has been the inclusion of timber in the tional adverse impact on those who have had to cut “paying communities to protect forest resources” resource available to communities for exploitation back or give up earlier gathering or grazing activities. Areas that have resources of sufficient size and (Kumar et al., 2000). (Wentzel, 1999). This has sometimes occurred in unexpected ways. quality to provide benefit flows commensurate with Recent research in Nepal, for instance, showed that the costs of management, areas that are not so heav- Another issue, given the relatively long-term nature of the structuring of community forests to yield prod- Disincentives created by conservation ily degraded or reduced in size as to require a size- much forest management, is whether changes in the ucts such as fodder, mulch and fuel, which restrictions able investment of time and effort in order to demand for forest products, and in the competitive- appeared to be most used locally, could in practice become productive, and areas that local users know ness of forest product activities relative to other Restrictions placed on forest use in order to protect favour the landed and those with livestock, rather how to manage, are evidently more likely to form the sources of income, of the kind reviewed in Chapter 2, forests brought into community forestry schemes than the landless, who need saleable products from basis for successful collective forest management are likely to increase or diminish local interest in the and put under sustainable forest management can the forest (Richards et al., 1999). 64 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 65

Restrictions placed on forest use in pursuit of con- Market-related disincentives many functioning commercial activities based on servation objectives can also significantly reduce the to manage collectively collectively managed forest resources. A study of fac- potential to generate satisfactory returns to local tors explaining the ability or the failure to adapt col- users. A recent study of experience with initiatives In principle, by giving added value to forest prod- lective management systems to deal with producing to encourage conservation-compatible types of for- ucts, market opportunities should increase the for the market, as well as for subsistence needs, con- est production in Latin America concluded that incentive to control the use and management of for- cluded that: “Communities who seem best able to these provide only limited scope for enhancement est resources. In practice, market forces can also adapt to commercialization are those with flexibility of the incomes of those engaged in them, and so can result in intensive pressures on collective manage- in determining whether to participate, which allows have the effect of discouraging sustainable forest ment systems. Thus, the Mexico experience shows control over the degree of change, or those in which management. Thus, with the exception of some sit- that opportunities to use the resource for commer- change has been less rapid” (McElwee, 1994). The uations that are well endowed with commercially cial ends are likely to introduce potential conflicts greater resilience of the longer-established chicle exploitable products and well placed with respect to between the pursuit of profitability and the welfare cooperatives in Quintana Roo, by comparison with access to markets, confining local commercial use objectives of collective control of forests. In the the newer ejido timber enterprises, when confronted to harvesting and sale of non-timber forest products process, market forces are likely to increase the with recent market liberalization policies, appears was found not to be financially rewarding. Similarly, transaction costs associated with maintaining a col- consistent with this finding. the additional costs of logging practices designed to lective management system. Some communities have formed joint ventures with the pri- reduce damage to the remaining forest were found In some situations, more complex mechanisms that vate sector in order to generate commercial revenues from to make timber production uncompetitive (South- Where market opportunities lead to greater pres- can cope with additional dimensions have been suc- wildlife resources. gate, 1998). sures on the resource from users both inside and cessfully developed. In some, these involve setting outside the user group, increased conflicts of inter- up separate arrangements for the subsistence and The difficulties encountered by communities in est are likely to arise, as has been seen frequently in commercial activities based on a collectively con- others, marketing (and sometimes production) has Mexico in continuing to manage ejido forests sus- the case studies in West Africa, making the process trolled resource. In the Sukhomajri project in the been handled by cooperatives of one kind or another. tainably in an increasingly competitive environment of control more difficult. This can cause breakdown Shivalik Hills in northern India, for instance, fodder Nevertheless, the recent developments in community raise a general issue in this respect: namely, that of the mechanisms for exclusion and control, lead- grass for local self-use is protected collectively and timber production in Mexico show how the need to sustainable forest management, as it is usually ing to overharvesting and degradation of the distributed to all member households, while the compete with modern-sector producers can accel- defined, reflects global rather than local conserva- resource. More complex controls and institutional rights to commercially valuable bhabbar grass are erate a transformation from collective to private tion values. Therefore, there is a need to consider measures are then likely to be needed, if collective auctioned to private contractors (Saxena, 1997). In control. what forms of external support local user groups control arrangements are to be able to cope with the the Communal Areas Management Programme for need in order to be able to accommodate such increased pressures (Thomson, 1992). Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) programme in TRANSFERRING EFFECTIVE POWER broader values. This issue, and the related argument Zimbabwe, communities have formed joint ventures that community forestry interventions should give It has been argued that, given these features, collec- with the private sector to get access to the special- One of the most frequently expressed concerns greater weight to conserving the attributes of forest tive management is best suited to meeting subsis- ized safari and hunting skills and experience needed about initiatives to devolve authority to manage resources that local people value and seek to con- tence demand, rather than production for the market to generate commercial revenues from the wildlife forest resources to local bodies is that, in practice, serve, is discussed further in Part 3. (Baland and Platteau, 1996). Nevertheless, there are resources that they manage (Murphree, 1996). In many of them fail to transfer real, or sufficient, 66 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 67

power and authority to those expected to take on tries where collective forestry is most developed For there to be actual devolution of authority requires community forestry. It embodies the underlying aim the responsibility for forest management. Policies (and is strongest) such as India, Nepal and Mexico, the transfer of significant property rights, though not of ensuring that those who are ‘dependent’ on the and programmes that actually empower local peo- tend to have been those that recognized that their necessarily rights of ownership, as has sometimes forest or its products have a commensurate say in ple to make decisions and set objectives, or at existing forestry strategies and practices were failing been argued (Agrawal and Ostrom, 1999; Baland and decisions about how it should be used, and an equi- least to have a genuine role in decision-making, to conserve essential functions associated with Platteau, 1996). Even where this has been specified table share in its benefits. But participation has are rare. As a result, collective or joint manage- forests, and to contribute to key national objectives, in devolution policies, it has often failed to material- been primarily a donor objective, not always shared ment does not achieve a real transfer of power, such as rural development, and those where govern- ize in practice. For instance, policy provisions have by governments of rentier States without much which effectively remains centralized (Fisher, ments had determined to rectify the situation. not been followed through with the necessary incentive to stimulate the rural sector. Nor has its 1999). changes in legislation and institutional structures. pursuit always reflected the realities of the condi- Similarly, devolution has been pursued where it has Though some progress has often occurred without tions of profound political imbalance within which This can come about for various reasons, but the been seen as a less costly strategy for maintaining such changes (Fox, 1996), without legislation that it is intended that such participation by the weaker most common is inability, or unwillingness, on the sustainable forest management at a time when cen- provides authority to government agencies and com- segments of society take place (Brown, 1999). part of governments to let go. This may be because tral budgets are shrinking. More proactively, it can munities to generate and implement the necessary insufficient attention has been paid to the condi- be pursued as a means of increasing the influence of rules, regulations and operational measures, local for- The result has frequently been ‘participation’ that is tions under which devolution of authority can be the central State at the local level by inserting its est management can be challenged in courts of law, more apparent than real. ‘Participatory’ mechanisms accomplished successfully. Devolution involves the presence into the mechanisms of local governance. and local groups can encounter difficulties in assert- emerge that enable forest departments to create willingness of central authorities to give up power to Devolution is also likely to be favoured where local ing their rights. Such problems are often aggravated local partners that become their proxies, rather than those at the local level, a course of action that often interests and the interests of the devolving authority because the legal base is weak and confused. In most representatives of local users able to challenge their clearly presents difficult choices. In the forest sec- are compatible. countries, Western tenure and more recent systems actions when necessary (Hobley, 1996). People may tor, as has been pointed out in commentary on the designed to transfer control over land from local to acquiesce in such changes, because they have no process in Nepal, “a major problem is that the organ- There are also several factors that cause devolution the new political élites, coexist with community sys- choice to do otherwise, but they are not empowered ization which has been given the responsibility for not to work satisfactorily in practice. One is that tems, undermining the latter but seldom providing a by them (Ribot, 1999). devolving control of forests to local communities other interests may prove to be stronger than those satisfactory alternative because they are not enforced. also represents the interests of those who have most favouring transfer of control of forest management This causes confusion, because the legal status of As has been seen in most of the case studies to gain by maintaining control of the forests them- to local user institutions. In Thailand, for instance, land and forest resources becomes unclear, and this reviewed above, forest departments all too often selves. The Forest Department is being asked to use although a logging ban had reduced the commercial can mean that people can be faced with different fora remain as active (and frequently dominant) partners its authority to give away its authority!” (Gilmour and revenue arguments in favour of central control for settling a dispute under different legal systems in local forest management, acting as stakeholders and Fisher, 1991). of upland forests, the growing strength of environ- (Bruce, 1999). with material interests in the resource as well as mental interests, concerned about water supplies government regulators. This frequently results in Devolution is more likely actually to take place for Bangkok, resulted in stricter protective regimes There have often also been shortcomings in the their prescribing rules and regulations that limit the when it provides a strategy whereby central govern- that have hampered rather than strengthened moves processes undertaken in order to enable local peo- rights and benefits of user communities and that ment can pursue its goals more effectively than at towards empowering communal management in ple to participate in decision-making. The concept effectively circumscribe the authority and freedom present (Agrawal and Ostrom, 1999). As was men- these forest areas (Vandergeest, 1996; Wittayapak, of participation, in the sense of ‘having a share or of the recipients to act (Ribot, 1999; Brown, 1999; tioned in Chapter 1, it is noteworthy that the coun- 1996). taking part’, has been central to the main thrust of Hobley, 1996). 68 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY

This is likely to undermine the very process of exist, or can be recreated (Campbell, 1990). As has empowering a local institution to deal with its par- become evident in all the cases reviewed, and from ticular situation. Pre-set formulaic rules are unlikely much other experience, this assumption needs to be to match the needs of many of the groups to whom critically reassessed. they are applied. Rules that cannot be altered by a group can freeze a continuously evolving relation- In many situations, migration, market integration, ship between people and the resource they draw changing attitudes, and differences in asset endow- upon at a particular point in time, preventing its ments and access to opportunities, have resulted in adaptation to further change (Hirsch, 1997). Even communities whose component parts have varying in Nepal, considerable disagreement and friction interests in the forest resources in their locality. In still exist between user groups and the forest depart- reality, communities are often internally differenti- ment over the rules laid down and monitored by the ated by wealth, power, class, gender and ethnic latter (Shrestha, 1996). identity, and are unlikely to share a consensus about how the forest should be managed and used. There The particular needs and constraints that women face with respect to access to forest products and control over tree Nor is it just the continuing involvement of the for- can be conflicting interests among the poor between resources are all too often neglected. est department that can affect the extent to which pastoral and settled users, between landed and real power over use of forest resources accrues to landless, and because of gender. The need of the local users. Others wishing to have a say may include poor for continued access to a common pool are likely to reflect disproportionately the views of frequently reflect the views and interests of only the other branches of central government, local govern- biomass resource to help sustain predominantly the vocal and the powerful, run the risk of failing to male members of households. Even where commu- ment, forest industries and commercial companies, subsistence-based coping strategies can increasing- represent equitably the interests of those who do not nity forestry programmes require that women be NGOs and other forms of civil society with interests ly conflict with the interests of those who are better have an effective voice (Brown, 1999). Moreover, represented in local user group institutions, this in particular environmental or developmental off and who wish to privatize forest output flows in participatory models based on assumptions of social does not necessarily result in their being able to aspects of the ways the forests are managed and order to benefit from the opportunities that increas- and cultural homogeneity can be at variance with the effectively voice their concerns where custom and used, donors and international biodiversity interests. ing commercialization of forest products presents, reality, for example, of the scope for women’s partic- practice militate against women engaging in the or of those who seek to privatize the land and put it ipation. Equally, attempts to recreate, or build upon, work of such communal institutions. As a result, the to non-forest uses. All too often, control over access collective systems with their origins in the past run particular needs and constraints that women face THE SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL to the forest resource is captured, or usurped, by an the risk of perpetuating relationships that are not with respect to access to forest products and control 8 FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL emergent élite within the broader community. consistent with contemporary values with respect to over tree resources are all too often neglected. gender or class (Hobley, 1996). COLLECTIVE MANAGEMENT Securing the rights of access of the poor to forest Another issue that emerges strongly from much of Implicit in much of the pursuit of participatory product resources in such fractured and often conflict- Almost everywhere, the interests of women are inad- the experience that has been documented is that of community forestry has been the assumption that ridden communities has proved problematic. Exer- equately heard or acted upon. Prevailing cultural the conditions of homogeneous communities that in cises in participatory appraisal, relying on methods attitudes and forms of local governance generally 8 For community forestry publications on gender issues, see Wilde the past often favoured collective management still such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), which mean that decisions are made by men and therefore and Vainio-Mattila, 1995; Rojas, 1994; Rojas, 1989; and Clarke, 1987. 70 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 71

the difficulty of creating, or maintaining, in hetero- As was seen in much of the case-study material, services (Ostrom, 1999). In some JFM programmes ization and economic restructuring, have brought geneous populations, a local institution capable of local government institutions have often also proved in India the VFCs have this kind of linkage to the forth new conflicts, as communities and their taking responsibility for the management of the to be unsatisfactory as a basis for local forest man- panchayats within which they are located. Forming members pursue new opportunities. Early interest resource. Earlier systems of control and manage- agement because of their predominantly political associations of user group organizations, such as in addressing conflict issues focused on negotiation ment at the community level have often become and bureaucratic agendas. This can make them FECOFUN in Nepal and the ‘forestry civil society’ and mediation as useful tools, as these were seen to eroded or broken down by the pressures brought more responsive to the concerns of the administra- associations in Mexico, can be another way to give be especially compatible with community forestry about by change, or represent only some of the tion than to the needs and wishes of their con- small groups greater strength and access to support because of its concern with participatory processes, stakeholders with claims on the resource. The high stituents. Local government bodies also generally and external partners. equity issues and strengthening of local capacity. transaction costs associated with organizing in order cover much larger areas and populations than a for- However, experience has underscored the role of to take on such responsibilities anew within frag- est user group, and may lack the technical knowl- Another approach focuses on ways of creating bet- other approaches, including coalition building and mented communities can mean that people are edge or the resources to control forestry activities. ter systems of negotiation and mutually acceptable litigation, in dealing with conflicts (Buckles, reluctant to do so, often preferring to leave it to for- This proved to be the case, for instance, when the collaborative use among different stakeholders 1999).9 est departments to manage the forest, or to allow central government in Bolivia devolved responsibility within larger, more heterogeneous user communi- the forest to become an unregulated open access for forestry to municipal governments (Kaimowitz et ties. Not all forms of difference among users are In recognition of the growing complexities involved, resource (Shepherd, 1992). al., 1998/1999). inimical to effective joint use (Ostrom, 1999; it has also been suggested that relationships among Baland and Platteau, 1996). Thus, successful FUGs the different parties with an interest in a forest be Equally widespread is the problem of local institu- Thus increasingly it has become recognized that in hill areas of Nepal have been found to be able to based not on new community-wide bodies, but on tions that, in practice, prove not to represent the community-wide institutions, favoured in so many craft innovative institutional arrangements that existing local ‘social capital’. This term has come to interests of their constituents. As was noted in the early community forestry programmes, may not be enable those with different interests to participate be used to describe the networks, norms and trust section on West Africa, traditional leaderships can the bodies best suited to manage directly situations in different ways (Varughese, 2000). built up within a society that facilitate cooperation pursue agendas that focus on their own rather than characterized by several different groups of users for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1993). The concept the community’s interests. Even in the programme with conflicting claims on local forest resources. The increasingly fractured social context within has attracted strong interest in recent years because of ancestral domain certification in the Philippines, One response has been the move to smaller, more which community forestry functions has led to a of the contribution that such social capital can which was designed specifically to restore local homogeneous groups that are better able to secure situation in which increased attention is being paid apparently make both to effective government and rights and authority to indigenous peoples, one of consensus, such as the FUGs in Nepal and the to mechanisms for conflict management. Competi- to economic development (Harriss and de Renzio, the main constraints to progress has proved to be cooperative groupements in some West African tion for forest resources within and among commu- 1997). Most rural communities function through a community groups’ lack of trust in their leaders countries. However, smaller groups are likely to nities has always generated conflict, spawning range of overlapping local institutional forms, such (Hilario and Sabban, 1997). Devolving control or have fewer resources and less leverage in accessing mechanisms such as local tenure systems and dis- as tenurial niches that provide rights of access to the decision-making powers to bodies that do not have the support available from the State. If divorced pute resolution fora to address such matters. resource, kin-based claims on labour to work the accountable leaders is likely to give power over the from the formal institutional infrastructure, they Increasingly, conflicts have also arisen between resource, and trading networks for marketing. It has resource to particular individuals or groups of indi- may also risk being seen to lack legitimacy. One communities and government agencies, businesses, been argued that it can be more logical and effective viduals within the community, effectively privatizing solution can be to ‘nest’ local user group organiza- conservation organizations, development agencies use rights in their favour. It thus risks defeating the tions within a hierarchy of organizations that and other entities over access to, and use of, forest 9 For applications to community forestry, see Bruce, 1999; and social objectives of community forestry. between them can provide these facilities and resources. Recent policy trends, such as decentral- Pendzich et al., 1994. 72 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 73

to negotiate and monitor forest management and It is also important to recognize the extent to which sustainable forest management are summarized in use through such existing arrangements than to try a community is as much a product of external influ- Box 11.10 In essence, the new focus is pursuing to create new, single community-wide institutions ences as it is of common internal interests. The three areas of improvement: a more acceptable bal- (Leach et al., 1997). communities that collective forest management pro- ance between forest departments and other stake- grammes are constructed around can easily be holders; frameworks for negotiation, planning and However, such social capital is less likely to exist in shaped as much by the procedures of the pro- management that provide equal participation by all; the recently settled communities often found in, or gramme as by the attributes of the people and their and methods of management, conflict resolution adjacent to, forest areas (Hirsch, 1997). Attempts to location. As a programme takes root, and people and monitoring that can accommodate different create social capital in such situations can develop interests in what it can deliver, the defini- objectives and measures of performance and adapt encounter the same difficulties as those that arise in tion of ‘community’ that it introduces can take on a to them (Anderson et al., 1998). creating VFCs; it can undermine or subvert existing life of its own, influencing future developments vested interests and consequently may not be effec- (Sundar and Jeffery, 1999). A number of techniques are evolving to address the tive as a mechanism through which all parties are analytical and operational challenges that accom- prepared to work. Such discussion about the community context of modating multiple interests raise in forestry (Vira community forestry has made it increasingly evi- et al., 1998). These include: ‘stakeholder analysis’, Underlying such moves to refine approaches to local dent that it can be counterproductive to consider which identifies the key stakeholders in the system collective management and control has been grow- community management as necessarily an either/or and the nature of their respective interests (Grim- ing recognition of the need to rethink the rationale alternative to private and State management ble and Chan, 1995); the ‘4Rs’ approach, which behind the current focus on ‘community’ as a vehi- options. Given the reality of multiple stakeholders defines stakeholder roles in terms of their respec- Different groups have, and always will have, different posi- tions, opinions and objectives on sustainable forest man- cle for development and change. Agrawal (1999) has with an interest in forests, it is often more likely tive rights, responsibilities, revenues/returns from agement and rural development. pointed out that, as recently as the 1950s and that appropriate solutions could incorporate com- the resource and relationships (Dubois, 1999); the 1960s, when the pathways to social change and ponents of more than one form of tenure and man- ‘environmental entitlements’ approach, which modernization appeared to be more clear cut, com- agement. tracks people’s access to, use of and transformation has accumulated yet to allow conclusions to be munities were seen as “repositories of tradition and of environmental goods and services (Leach et al., drawn as to what will succeed. Consequently, at an obstacle to ‘progress’”. The subsequent shift away As it has become increasingly clear that community 1997); and ‘adaptive management’, which accepts present, the more innovative and forward-looking from this perception of community accompanied forestry can encompass a complex of different inter- site-specific differences and the need for continu- collaborative programmes contain a substantial ele- growing recognition that the earlier development ests both within the local user community and ous testing, feedback, appraisal and revision (Lee, ment of experimentation, as is further discussed in theories with which it was associated were proving among multiple stakeholders with some claim on 1999). Though such innovative approaches offer Chapter 4. to be flawed. Therefore, we need to be sensitive to the resource, so attention has shifted towards more promise, not enough experience in applying them the danger that the current perception of community pluralistic approaches and mechanisms that are To recapitulate, progress with collective manage- as possessing many attributes favourable to devel- designed for conditions in which two or more ment and co-management of forests has often been 10 The subject is extensively reviewed in , 49(194). A opment may also prove to be in need of revision groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist. more complete set of papers on the subject, from a 1997 substantial. However, it is sometimes constrained International Workshop on Pluralism and Sustainable Forestry (Agrawal, 1999). Key elements of pluralism in the context of and Rural Development, is in FAO, 1999. by insufficient information about the conditions 74 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 3: Collaborative management 75

under which it could be appropriate, or about how appropriate way of strengthening the position of Some key elements of pluralism in BOX 11 to implement it in the often complex conditions of local users, alternative approaches, such as targeting sustainable forestry and rural development multiple stakeholders. In this connection, it is weaker interest groups, may be more effective and important to recognize that there can be limits to appropriate (Leach et al., 1997). It may also be, as collective action. Not all situations where there is pressures on collective systems mount, that more the need to strengthen the position of local users of users will need to shift towards community forestry ■ ■ Different groups have, and always will have, different Conflicts are inevitable and cannot be resolved, but common pool forest resources are amenable to forms involving individual control and private rights, positions, opinions and objectives on sustainable for- they can be managed. improvement in this manner. Where this is not an which are discussed in Chapter 4. est management and rural development. ■ Equity in decision-making is a distant, but worthy, ■ Groups are autonomous and independent. ideal.

■ There is no single, absolute, universal and perma- ■ Platforms, mediators and facilitators are often needed nent solution to any substantive natural resource to provide the conditions for negotiation and cooper- management problem; for any given land unit there ation needed for sustainable forest management. is no single, absolute, sustainable management land ■ Communication is essential and helps participants to use scenario (there are numerous ‘sustainable better understand their differences. scenarios’). ■ Consensus is unlikely, but progress can be achieved ■ No group/organization can claim a superior or without it. absolute scenario; sustainable forestry and rural ■ development decision-making is no longer the sole Approaches to sustainable forest management that aim mandate of expert authorities. at consensus are often misguided and unsustainable.

■ ■ A system of organizational checks and balances is Proactive approaches and new processes of sustainable central for avoiding errors of a narrow, single-entity forest management decision-making in pluralistic envi- management system; this is the positive aspect of ronments are emerging; more experience is needed. ‘bounded conflict’. Source: Anderson et al., 1998 CHAPTER 4 Smallholder management

eople’s involvement in forest management as individual small- holders or households, rather than through collective bodies, is P concentrated in the management of trees as part of, or in con- junction with, farming, and in small-scale commercial processing and trade of forest products. This chapter examines these two forms of smallholder management, but first considers the limited experience of management of forests at the household level.

CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 77 78 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 79

of usufruct rights to income flows and trees, with land, use rights or other inputs that they contribute. Smallholder the land remaining under collective control. Gener- In practice, therefore, some of the forest that had Smallholder management of forests ally, it was confined to plantation forests that had passed into household control is now again managed management in been established to provide non-timber products, to collectively, but in ways that should make those who s noted at the beginning of the preceding fuelwood forests, and to small patches of timber now have property or use rights in the resource forest fringe areas chapter, many situations exhibit features forests not suitable for collective management more directly involved in decisions about manage- armers living in, or on the edges of, forest that favour management of forests on a (Dachang, 2001). ment and benefit distribution. It is reported that A areas often develop tree management sys- scale too large to be easily handled by individual group management schemes initiated by farmers are tems based on components of the forest. households, and are therefore more logically man- After the transfer of forest resources, there was at generally proving more successful than those initiated F This can take the form of retention of parts of the aged by a group of users, or by the State, or by a com- first a marked decline in growing stock, even in area by the government (Dachang, 2001). forest cover, within or adjacent to areas put under bination of the two. For example, the forest may under forest. As this trend was later reversed, it crops, to be managed for particular products, or need to be managed as an ecosystem rather than as appears that it was mainly the result of farmers’ ini- Arguments that individual, private management of enrichment of the forest to increase the density of a small plot; there may be pronounced economies of tial uncertainties about the security of their tenure. forests is more efficient have led to some devolution tree species of value. Prominent examples of enrich- scale in some aspects of forest management and use, It is argued that, because of repeated earlier policy to this level in other countries as well. In 1997 the ment systems include the açaí and babaçu palms in or more than one category of user with claims upon changes, farmers felt that their new rights could be Government of Zimbabwe, for instance, made a parts of the Amazon basin (Anderson and Ioris, it; or there may be ecological and other ‘externality’ reversed, and they seized the chance to exploit the policy decision to privatize woodland as well as arable 1992; May et al.,1985), indigenous fruit species in values involved. Such factors are likely to create con- resource while they could (Dachang, 2001). land in resettlement areas, in response to arguments the forest belt in West Africa (Falconer, 1990), and straints to efficient management of forests at the that this would result in a less destructive use of the smallholder level. Management at this level is con- The early destocking led in 1987 to a ban on further resource (Goebel, 1999). However, the debate on sequently found in only a few situations. transfers to household control, and some local gov- smallholder management so far seems not to have ernments decided to restore collective management. sufficiently addressed counterarguments in favour of To date, privatization of public forests to individual Nevertheless, most of the area originally transferred collective control, some of which have been households has occurred on a large scale primarily has remained under household management. How- reinforced by the experience in China. These in countries in transition from socialist systems. By ever, evidence has been accumulating that the frag- include: the diseconomies of small scale associated far the largest initiative to encourage smallholder mentation of forest resources to numerous small- with management of many forest types and outputs; households to take on responsibility for manage- holdings has increased the cost and difficulty of sil- the danger that smallholder owners will lack the ment of existing forests in developing countries has viculture, protection and logging, adversely affecting resources to be able to conserve and manage a forest been that in China. In the early 1980s, the agricul- the cost-efficiency of forest management. In resource; the pressures to overuse forest resources tural ‘responsibility system’, under which cropland response, there have been moves by both govern- when their full value is not reflected in market prices; under collective control was distributed among the ment and farmers to restore some of the economies the poor record of private owners in managing in an member households, was extended to forest lands of larger scales of working through various types of environmentally sound manner; and the likelihood under collective control, on the grounds that house- shareholder schemes. These take several forms, but that there will not be enough land for all those who hold management of forest resources would be more in essence, all involve reverting to some form of col- presently draw upon the forests as a common pool An experiment to reproduce wild fruit-trees in Brazil. Farm- resource, so that many will be left worse off by priva- efficient. Sometimes this involved transfer of own- lective management, with the contributing house- ers in forest areas often develop tree management systems ership; more frequently it took the form of transfer holds benefiting in proportion to the share of pooled tization (McKean, 2000; Bromley and Cernea, 1989). based on components of the forest. 80 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 81

various species and products in the forest zone in low productivity of such systems, it is reported that harvesting and marketing. Therefore, a combination Thus, though increased market demand can mean Southeast Asia (Michon and de Foresta, 1999). smallholder timber forest management for commer- of communal and private rights can prevail at pres- that the agroforestry systems become more impor- cial purposes has proved to be viable on scales from ent (Peluso and Padoch, 1996). tant parts of smallholder livelihood systems, some of In the Amazon, and elsewhere in Latin America, about 40 ha in operations in Brazil, from 20 to 30 ha the changes taking place are also putting them there has been a rise in recent years in smallholder in Costa Rica, and from as little as 20 ha in Ecuador Such systems continue to evolve and change in under threat. The systems are little understood, and management of timber as part of such systems (Wentzel, 1999). response to changing demands, shifts in access to suffer from lack of formal recognition of customary (Wentzel, 1999). In addition to the common prac- markets, the availability of alternative sources of rights. Compared with agroforestry tree planting tice whereby smallholders occasionally harvest tim- In the outer islands of , which contain income and employment, and growing restrictions within farm landscapes, such agroforest systems ber trees from the forest cover on their land, there is some of the world’s main concentrations of long- on resource availability. Increased prices for some within forest areas have received little attention, and growing evidence that households practise longer- standing agroforest systems derived from a forest smallholder products, as rural forest areas have been there is a risk that this important form of community term management of forest plots for valued timber base, cinnamon, illipe nut, rattan, rubber, damar opened up, have led to their being exploited at rates forestry will decline as a result. species, and that smallholders plant selected timber (resin), fruits such as durian, and even some timber in excess of what can be sustained by the produc- species within managed patterns of forest frag- species, are among the more important products tion system, so that over time they are declining or ments, fallow and agriculture (Pinedo-Vasquez cultivated in this manner. Such agroforest products are being replaced by plantation sources. The open- Planted trees in farm et al., 1998). Although some studies emphasize the can provide much of the income of the producing ing up of forest areas, and the emergence of new households. Some may be managed as semi- activities such as logging, also offer rural people landscapes permanent tree crops, or as enrichment planting in alternative ways of diversifying out of predomi- semi-managed forest gardens around settlements, nantly subsistence activities. With more people ree planting by farmers appears to be but most form part of long fallow rotations, alternat- leaving villages for wage employment, there are increasing in a wide range of situations. ing and intercropped with agricultural crops and fewer to maintain labour-intensive agroforestry pro- T Tree growing generally increases as peo- often incorporating an understorey of other plants of duction systems (Peluso and Padoch, 1996). ple move towards more intensive agriculture and value that increase the overall productivity of the land use, and as access to natural tree stocks system (Michon and de Foresta, 1999). In some places, such systems are also being eroded declines. Within most systems there also appears to by competing claims on the forest and the land be a general progression over time towards more These agroforest systems often occur in areas in over which local people have had historic de facto ‘planted’ trees, as agriculture intensifies and existing which village lands and surrounding forest lands rights. Forest is being cleared to make room for tree stocks diminish (Arnold and Dewees, 1997; have traditionally been managed as common prop- growing populations and migrant settlers. Increas- Warner, 1993; Shepherd, 1992). erty, with smaller extended family groups controlling ingly, areas of remaining forest are being allocated access to planted trees that is based on descent by the government to logging concessions, which The reasons for this vary. One widespread shift that from the earlier planters, and with individuals having can overlap with the areas used by local people for has contributed to it appears to be the emergence of private property rights to trees they have planted. As forest gardens. Where the species managed for labour as a limiting factor in agriculture in many the commercial importance of products increases, smallholder products also have timber value, they rural situations, as more people seek work off farm rights to use particular trees controlled by descent are likely to be harvested as timber, as has been the and fewer children are available for farm work Smallholder timber forest management for commercial because they are at school. As tree growing is less purposes has proved to be viable on scales from as little as groups is often vested in individuals, if only tem- case with Shoreas which produce illipe nuts (Pelu- 20 ha in Ecuador. porarily, in order to facilitate timely decisions on so, 1993). labour intensive than most agricultural crops, this 82 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 83

in tree products usually develops as local markets for fruits, fuelwood and other tree products emerge; Trees and land and labour BOX 12 as shortages develop; as increasing demands on the allocation time of household members leave less time for gath- ering what is needed to meet household needs; and Supply and demand for land and labour interact in a number of as rising cash incomes allow some the option of pur- ways that can influence the decision of households to cultivate chasing rather than gathering or growing. House- and manage trees on their holdings. holds that are managing tree stocks in order to pro- vide themselves with such products will sell what is surplus to their needs, to exploit the opportunity to ■ As tree planting and husbandry requires less input of ■ The quality of land within a holding, as well as across generate additional income. Production for urban labour than most other crops, it may be seen to be a holdings in a given agro-ecological zone, may vary and industrial markets is more likely to be practised feasible land-use option when the opportunity costs of greatly. Trees may be planted in those areas which by farmers in areas where the process of agrarian labour are high because there are good wage oppor- would require most labour to cultivate in order to even transition has evolved towards greater involvement tunities in other labour markets. out labour demands. in commodity markets and an entrepreneurial ■ Problems with hiring and supervising labour can act as ■ Trees may be planted and maintained as an alternative Fewer children are available for farm work because they approach to agriculture based on cash crops (Arnold incentives for households to plant or to maintain trees to sale of land that is surplus to the household’s imme- are at school. This can contribute to an increase in tree instead of other, more labour-intensive crops. diate needs in order to retain resources that can be growing, which is less labour intensive than most agricul- and Dewees, 1997). passed on to the next generation. Tree growing may tural crops. ■ Older households, with a smaller resident active also be preferable to renting out surplus land because labour force on which to draw, may adopt less labour- the latter might jeopardize the tenure holder’s long- CONTRASTING FARM FORESTRY intensive forms of land use, such as tree growing. fact, together with the related increase in the role of PROGRAMMES term rights of ownership. income from non-farm sources, has encouraged ■ Trees may be planted by households with access to suf- Source: Adapted from Dewees and Saxena, 1997 increased use of trees (see Box 12). Where con- In practice, though, much of government and donor ficient income from non-farm sources, which conse- straints on the availability of capital prevent or limit support for tree growing by farmers has encouraged quently have less need to cultivate their land intensively. the purchase of inorganic fertilizer, or construction growing for the market. In one of the largest farm of soil protection structures, there is often increased forestry support initiatives, the Social Forestry pro- reliance on trees to help maintain site productivity. grammes of the late 1970s and 1980s in India, species, particularly eucalypts), cash subsidies for yields in the vicinity of the planted trees, falling out- Farm trees generally also have a role in diversifying although the intention of the farm forestry initiative planting in many of the states, and information about put prices as the additional supplies created an the farm economy, helping to even out seasonal was to focus on meeting household needs for fuel- prices that made tree crops seem more attractive imbalance with demand, and uncertainties over peaks and troughs in output and demands on labour, wood, in practice most planting that has taken place yields and markets. Farmers’ access to markets was and providing protection against damage from wind, has produced wood products for sale. This reflected than agricultural crop alternatives on some sites. water and sun. a strong extension presence by forest departments, adversely affected by government controls on private pressures on them to achieve ambitious targets for However, after the first growing cycle, eucalypt production and transport of wood products, govern- As a rule, most farm-level tree management is con- numbers of seedlings raised and distributed (which growing was discontinued by many farmers due to ment sales of at administered prices, and ducted primarily to meet household needs. Trading led them to focus on a few known industrial forestry costs that were higher than anticipated, lower crop price controls on domestic fuels (kerosene and gas) CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 85

different tree species and management practices. smallholder subsistence production of food crops to Cropland became the dominant site for tree plant- the point where household food self-sufficiency lev- ing, and building poles replaced fuelwood as the els could be adversely affected (SIDA, 1990). principal use, with green manure, fruit, shade, medicinal products, timber and stakes as other uses. It has been argued that more attention should be paid to matching production with demand (Arnold The predominant reasons why farmers increased and Dewees, 1997; Current et al., 1995). In particu- the numbers of trees and the land area in trees, lar, higher priority should be given to changing poli- under conditions of increasing land scarcity, appear cies and practices that presently constrain farmers’ to have been to obtain critical consumption goods access to markets and depress market prices for their that would otherwise have to be purchased, to diver- tree products. Private producers are frequently sub- sify their sources of cash income, and to protect jected to costly controls on harvesting, transport and food security in the face of declining crop yields. sale, which are designed to protect against illegal While the initial focus was on self-sufficiency objec- for sale from State forests, or to control com- tives, interest quickly turned to commercial oppor- petition with timber production from the latter. In Building a house with eucalypt poles. tunities, with consequent demand for greater assis- China, this kind of heavy regulation seems to have tance with marketing (Scherr, 1997). discouraged farmers from planting timber species, that kept fuelwood prices artificially low. Small pro- In contrast, fewer projects have focused on contributing to a shift towards non-timber forest ducers proved to be at a further disadvantage in sell- strengthening the multispecies, multiple-product product species on forest lands that have been trans- ing to industrial and urban markets because the size strategies found in many existing small farmer sys- REFOCUSING SUPPORT ferred to household control (Dachang, 2001). of supplies from State forests and plantations often tems. One that has done so was a Cooperative for STRATEGIES enabled them to capture advantages of scale in the Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE)-supported It is frequently argued that investment in a relatively negotiation of prices and in marketing agreements. project in an area in western Kenya, where on-farm Recent work in Central America has similarly con- long gestation crop, such as trees, requires the secu- Industries and traders preferred to buy from a few tree planting and management had become progres- cluded that, for the majority of farmers for whom rity of tenure provided by having title to the land on large suppliers rather than from a multitude of small, sively more intensive with the transition to perma- farm trees mainly serve a self-sufficiency role, sup- which they grow. However, it appears that, rather dispersed producers. nent cropping, the disappearance of communal tree port should focus on helping them move forward than the form of tenure, what usually seems to be resources and the rise of local cash markets for fuel- incrementally by providing information about unfa- important is people’s sense of security that they In some areas adjacent to urban and industrial mar- wood, poles, seedlings and fruit. Planting of trees miliar species and planting configurations (Current have assured access to the fruits of their investment kets, farm forestry has continued to be profitable, was historically in underused parts of the farm, such et al., 1995). It also supports the view that the earlier within whatever system of land tenure they are and in some situations trees have become a major as areas around homesteads and along field path- focus on intervening primarily to stimulate an located (Fortmann, 1985). Though there are situa- crop. In general, though, eucalypt planting proved ways and borders. During the period from 1985 to increase in supply of tree products is insufficient, tions where title to the land is needed (for example, to be a viable option mainly for wealthier farmers 1989, a farmer-responsive extension service sub- and may be wrongly focused. There is evidence that when it is necessary to take out a loan) and some who had more land and more assets, faced shortages stantially increased the ‘menu’ of tree-related planting subsidies in some programmes lead to tenurial conditions (such as sharecropping or uncer- of labour and problems of supervision, and had options available to households, and farmers undesirable distortions in land use, such as displace- tainty over the state of landowner claims to tree- diversified sources of incomes (Saxena, 1992). responded by employing a larger number of ment of sharecroppers and grazing, and reduction in bearing land) that will preclude tree growing, farm- 86 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 87

the growers rather than the companies, such as the consistent with the needs and possibilities of both tual arrangements. In South Africa, for instance, initiatives of cooperatives to create a collective mar- sides. Outgrower schemes become attractive to a smallholders growing black wattle can market it and keting or processing channel for their outputs. Oth- company when they can supply wood at lower cost get technical support through a wattle growers’ ers involve companies contracting to rent land from than the alternatives, often in situations where costs cooperative (Clarke et al., 1997). In the Philippines, farmers on which to grow trees, or contracting with can be influenced by indirect factors associated the company operating the outgrower programme farmers to grow trees on company or public land. with the holding of land and employment of large also has a programme for those without title to land Still others obtain supplies from nearby farmers who labour forces. Thus, issues of land tenure, good to grow trees under contract on company land are linked to the company as ‘outgrowers’. neighbour relationships and labour management (Arnold, 1997). can be important. The potential advantages of outgrower arrange- In recent years, there has also been a revival of ments include the benefit to industry of limiting the Tree outgrowing can be appropriate for smallholders interest in developing schemes to enable farmers or need to invest in land, labour and the other costs of when they have sufficient annual income from other the landless to grow trees on public land. In the managing and harvesting a forest resource, and the sources to secure their ongoing needs, and when the past, a number of countries ran taungya pro- benefit to growers of an assured market and access land that they can use for trees is not needed for grammes, under which farmers were temporarily to technical services. For the farmers, it can provide food crop production or for other basic needs. Tree allocated plots on public forest land on which they A farmer transporting tree seedlings for planting on his assured and equitable access to markets, as well as growing is likely to be attractive when the features were allowed to cultivate agricultural crops between land. access to technical support and credit. of an assured market and access to technical advice and inputs make tree crops a more stable source of ers’ decisions about growing trees are usually found However, the development of such arrangements income than alternative uses of the land. to be influenced more by economic than by tenure in developing countries has been limited. Well- considerations (Current et al., 1995; Shepherd, developed outgrower programmes, usually set up by These features, and the probable need to have title to 1992; Godoy, 1992). pulp and paper companies for farmers to grow pulp- their land to be eligible for a loan, indicate that tree wood for them on their farms, exist in South Africa outgrowing is unlikely to be feasible for very small or and the Philippines, and on a smaller scale in Brazil poor farmers. As was found to be the case with con- and India and elsewhere (Desmond and Race, tract farming of agricultural tree crops, it is more likely Trees as contract crops 2000; Clarke et al., 1997; Roberts and Dubois, to attract the ‘middle peasantry’ among smallholders 1996). Some of these have achieved a considerable (Baumann, 2000). Outgrower schemes that have orest industries in many parts of the measure of success in delivering benefits both to the failed have sometimes done so because they have world draw a large part of their wood and growers and the company. attempted to introduce tree crops to farmers for F fibre raw material from small growers, whom they were not suitable for these reasons. generally farmers, under some form of agreement. For such outgrower arrangements to function satis- In some, companies acquire their supplies through factorily, there needs to be a balanced and equitable In areas where tree outgrowing is well established, Eucalpyts grown for industrial users. Forest industries in relationship between the producers and the company there are often other programmes for farmers who trading intermediaries, and do not have a direct rela- many parts of the world draw a large part of their wood and tionship with the growers. Others are initiatives of (see Box 13). The arrangement also needs to be cannot, or do not wish to, enter outgrower contrac- fibre raw material from small growers, generally farmers. 88 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 89

rows of young timber trees for two or three years in Framework for assessing forestry BOX 13 return for planting and protecting the tree seedlings. outgrower schemes If land was available, they could then move on to another plot, leaving behind a maturing tree planta- tion. This provided forest departments with a low- cost means of establishing plantations, and provided PRINCIPLES over the contractual period, with opportunities for farmers with some access to land on which to pro- renegotiation or inherent flexibility within contracts These include: duce food crops in situations where there was short- (i.e. partners need to avoid high-risk arrangements); ■ mutual acceptance of each partner’s aims under the age of arable land. However, the lack of security for ■ arrangements that are formalized (i.e. have legal sta- arrangement; those participating in such schemes meant that they tus), with clear details of when and how multiple ben- were attractive only where farmers had no other ■ a fair negotiation process in which all partners can efits can be arranged (e.g. collection of non-timber option. Over time, most have been abandoned, in make informed and free decisions (including forest products, grazing, intercropping), contracts recognition that they were fundamentally exploita- allowance for a third party to negotiate on their can be nullified, and compensation would be forth- tive in nature. Those which survive, such as the behalf); coming (it would also appear useful for a credible and independent third party to be nominated to arbitrate tumpang sari system in Java, continue to suffer from ■ the realistic prospect that all partners can derive ben- if disagreement arises); and the same limitations. Villagers working in their tree nursery. efits proportional to their contributions and risks; and ■ partners who have access to accurate, in-depth and ■ long-term viability and commitment of partners to If the new schemes are to succeed, they will have to independent information on: optimize the returns from the arrangement, in terms avoid the weaknesses of taungya. Most have focused possible to grant leases to all the landless in the of commercial, socio-cultural and environmental • likely short- and long-term prospects (with contin- on encouraging participants to use the land just for community, problems of choice of participants arise. attributes. gency scenarios explored if arrangements are trees, rather than for trees and crops (sometimes And those who do not benefit from the scheme are nullified); because of the perceived risk that crops would left with reduced access to the common pool current and likely long-term viability of prospec- strengthen farmers’ claims to longer-term tenure of resources on which they have depended for grazing, CRITERIA • tive partners; and the land). But the intermittent nature of income fuel, etc. In one of the most successful schemes, in These include: • likely long-term context for local forestry develop- flows from tree growing makes it an unsuitable basis West Bengal, farmers have been grouped together to ■ a positive local socio-cultural, policy, economic and ment (e.g. market trends, product volumes and for livelihood security for the poor. Such schemes grow trees on small plots of wasteland, which are environmental context in which all the principles competitiveness, necessary infrastructure, govern- are therefore more suitable for those who have other then allocated to individual households. The farm- noted above can develop; ment policy, code of practices, local sustainable for- land on which they can grow food crops, or other ers get long-term leases and are able to benefit from est management practices, landholder/grower par- ■ partners who are willing and able to contribute to sources of income to meet ongoing needs. group economies of scale in planting, extension, ticipation and wider community support). arrangements within the socio-economic and envi- protection and marketing. ronmental parameters of their household/business Source: Desmond and Race, 2000 Where the land to be allocated previously had other uses, as was the case with the ‘tree patta’ leases on In China, large areas of wasteland and degraded village land in India, other issues can arise. If there land have been allocated to households for use in is insufficient cultivable land available to make it creating tree plantations. Some of this land was allo- 90 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 91

cated as ‘family plots’: in these, the household could impede the emergence of better livelihood acquired use rights and ownership of any trees it Small-scale processing systems for the participants. Encouraging participa- planted, but did not acquire ownership of the land. and trading of forest tion in production of products already facing satu- This has not proved to be a popular form of distri- rated markets is also likely to result, at best, in redis- bution, and there has been greater response to a products tribution among the poor (Haggblade and Mead, parallel programme of leasing or contracting land to 1998). That being the case, it may be more fruitful orest products generate part of the households that imposes no limit on how much the to help people move into other, more rewarding income of large numbers of people and, lessee can acquire. Planting is supported by loans fields of endeavour rather than seek to raise their for substantial numbers of people, they rather than subsidies, and low-cost loans backed by F productivity in their current activity. The alterna- are a major part. In nearly every country where such funding from the World Bank have made tree grow- tives may be other forest product activities, but they information exists, small-scale forest product activi- ing a profitable activity for many. However, lack of could equally well be activities not associated with ties are to be found among the three largest cate- subsidies restricts access by the poor. There are also forests or trees. In either case, care needs to be gories of non-farm rural commercial activity, in concerns that the attractiveness of tree planting taken to ensure that future growth prospects are terms of numbers of people engaged in them (Lied- could be diverting land from agriculture (Rozelle indeed better for the alternative product lines to Woodworking to make mortars and pestles for the market. holm and Mead, 1993; FAO, 1987). For many, et al., 2000). which people are being encouraged to move (Arnold involvement in sale of forest products forms just one et al., 1994). component of the overall activity of the household, Given the large amount of non-arable wasteland 1992). Similarly, such interventions have sometimes frequently in conjunction with agriculture. present in many countries, the relevance of tree In recent years, a number of initiatives have been led to product expansion on a scale that has resulted cover in keeping marginal and fragile lands in use, The large numbers of people who succeed in setting launched to encourage trade in particular forest in depletion of the raw material resource as, for and the potential for tree crops to contribute to rural up new activities of this nature suggest that in gen- products for industrial or niche export markets. How- example, with a programme that successfully incomes, it can be expected that the search for viable eral there is little need for measures to attract new ever, such product trades have often been driven by expanded export demand for decorative baskets schemes of this nature will continue. However, there entrants. However, high rates of attrition, particu- “donors and NGOs who form enthusiasms [for] var- made by households in Botswana (Terry, 1984). is one feature of smallholder tree growing, on farms larly among new enterprises, indicate the need for ious ‘silver bullets’ ... that are hoped to be environ- as well as on public lands, that needs to be kept in interventions to encourage entrants to concentrate ment-friendly and income boosters” (Hazell and Interventions are likely to be more effective if they mind. To the extent that tree growing is expanding on the more viable and sustainable kinds and levels Reardon, 1998). Many have proved to be susceptible are directed towards types of forest product activity because of its efficiency as a use of resources in of activity. to change in market requirements, to domination by involving large numbers of people. The huge pres- labour- and capital-constrained situations, it is to be intermediaries and to shifts to domesticated or syn- ence of small-scale activities producing and selling expected that if these were to become more readily As was pointed out in Chapter 2, the poorer people thetic sources of supply, and they have consequently forest products in rural areas reflects the fact that available the trend towards more trees would slow engaged in generating income from materials from not been sustainable. Therefore, they can expose demand for most of this output is also rural (FAO, down or be reversed. If better-functioning factor forests tend to be concentrated in low-return prod- rural households to high levels of risk, particularly 1987). Large increases in the prospects for small- markets were to enable farmers to purchase fertiliz- uct activities, many of which can offer no more than when the trade has encouraged people to move away holder and small enterprise commercial activities in er and hire labour, for example, they would be like- marginal, unsustainable livelihoods. This presents from more diversified and less risky agriculture- the forest sector are, therefore, more likely to result ly in many situations to move back to more intensive particular issues. Support to such activities, once based livelihoods, as with some of the extractive from agricultural growth and the demands this gen- uses of land. higher-return or less arduous alternatives emerge, product trades from the Amazon region (Browder, erates. As discussed above, this kind of change also 92 PART TWO: CONTEMPORARY FORMS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY CHAPTER 4: Smallholder management 93

opens up the more rewarding income-generating market and to provide farmers with the information regulations designed to limit, rather than to encour- One of the fundamental policy issues that many forest product-based opportunities. that would have enabled them to make their own age, private production and sale of forest products. governments need to address, therefore, is this con- informed decisions about the profitability of grow- Restriction of output by means of regulations is flict within their overall strategy to provide forest In short, much of the effort to date has not been ing trees (Saxena, 1992). often favoured because it is seen as easier than con- products. While providing support to production by focused in ways that are most likely to materially trolling forest use on the ground (Dewees and smallholders and small enterprise activities through enhance the potential for forest product activities to Smallholder and artisanal production and trade of Scherr, 1996). one part of their forestry programme, they constrain contribute to rural livelihoods. Interventions to forest products take place overwhelmingly in the and compete with them through the industrial encourage or support greater participation in unregulated, informal sector. The potential for such Forest departments may also impose charges in order forestry component. In the short term, the scope for income-generating activities need to be better activities rests in part on the existence of an overall to capture a share of the value. Producers may be improving the position of the latter probably lies informed about the realities of the commercial envi- regulatory environment that does not discriminate obliged to sell to government marketing bodies, or to mainly in removing or relaxing regulatory constraints ronment within which people are being encouraged against this category of production and trade. In par- traders to whom concessions have been granted. that reinforce the structural and scale advantages to operate. This applies equally to programmes to ticular, many types of small-scale operation could Farmers are often subjected to controls on harvest- that the government, through its forest department, stimulate tree growing for the market. The aban- not remain viable if they were obliged to observe ing, transport and sale of wood and other tree prod- possesses as a producer of many forest products. A donment of eucalypt growing by so many farmers in regulations designed for larger, formal-sector opera- ucts from their land, which are often motivated by logical longer-term solution would be to phase out India was largely due to the farm forestry pro- tions, as the cost of doing so would weigh dispro- the need to curb illegal felling from State forests. If State production in those markets where smallholder gramme’s failure to anticipate the limited size of the portionately heavily on them. In this connection, they cannot be abolished, controls of this kind can production has a comparative advantage. recent moves to require small producers to adhere often be reduced and simplified, such as excluding to product certification requirements must be of exotic species that are grown by farmers but that do This would contribute to meeting a more funda- some concern. A review of timber certification for not occur in the natural forests. mental concern that has been raised (Dove, 1993); the International Tropical Timber Organization namely that the potential for community forestry to (ITTO) has shown that this places particular bur- In many countries, the government also intervenes contribute to improving the livelihoods of the rural dens on small producers (Simula and Ghazali, in the market directly, as a producer from State poor will continue to be limited as long as the latter 1996). Imposing certification requirements on some forests. Some products are made available at subsi- are unable to participate in the more profitable and non-timber forest product trades could prove even dized prices because of their importance to the poor. dynamic product activities. If local people cannot more onerous for small producers and traders Others are effectively sold at below-cost prices participate proportionately in activities that realize (though it has been shown that it can assist some in because the process of setting and collecting royal- the benefits to be obtained from timber and other getting access to particular markets for which their ties fails to capture an appropriate share of the eco- high-value products of the forest, they will remain products are suited). nomic rent. The result is that the private producer is confined to the low-value activities, which provide confronted with competition from subsidized them with only limited opportunity to escape from As noted above, in many countries governments sources. There is a danger that, by hindering farm- poverty. Real empowerment for local users should intervene to control the trade in forest products in ers’ access to tree product markets in these ways, mean providing them with equitable access to all ways that, directly or indirectly, hamper smallholder governments may inadvertently be interfering with the opportunities that a forest resource could Wood products and handicrafts for sale in Bolivia. Interven- producers. Because they give high priority to con- the shift from a subsistence to a market economy. provide. tions to support or encourage forest product enterprises servation objectives, many governments have set in need to be well informed about the realities of the com- mercial environment. place forest and environmental policies and that there is often need to rethink or modify some earlier hypotheses and approaches. In a number of important respects, community forestry is presently in a state of transition. At one level, this reflects growing recognition that the potentials for intervention are much more complex than was previously assumed, and that many past attempts at intervention have not been sufficiently realistic. In particular, it has proved much more difficult than expected to bring about effective and equitable transfer of authority and power. In addition, it has proved necessary to expand the concept of community forestry to recognize that it will often embrace individual and corporate, as well as collective, forms of manage- ment and activity.

Experience is also showing that the different objectives that underlie the support for community forestry are not necessarily as congruent with one another as had been previously tacitly assumed. Thus, different interest groups engaging in com- Part 3 munity forestry do so because they see it as being important for one or another of the following reasons:

COMMUNITY FORESTRY ■ as a component of strategies to enhance rural livelihoods, in particular the livelihoods of the poor and, within the poor, of women and other disadvan- IN TRANSITION taged groups;

■ as a means to manage forest resources sustainably so as to conserve them ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO, the concept of community forestry, in one and the biodiversity they contain; and

form or another, emerged as a focus for addressing the linkages between ■ as a component of government strategies to devolve and decentralize respon- forestry and rural people. Some countries are still at an early stage in the sibilities, and to reduce the budgetary costs to the central government of managing the forest sector. process of applying this concept, but in others it has become central to the Different interest groups thus have different expectations in terms of outcomes, way forest resources are managed. Not surprisingly, the considerable but and it can be unrealistic to assume that win-win solutions are always possible varied experience that has accrued, both of interventions to support appli- when this is the case (Vira, 1999). Some community forestry approaches are now seen to have been overly biased towards one objective at the expense of others, cations of the concept in practice, and of research and evaluation studies for instance, pursuing progress in terms of institutional change, or more effective to better understand the linkages between forests and people, has shown and lower-cost protection of forests, rather than in terms of impacts on people’s

94 PART THREE: COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION 9595 lives (Hobley, 1996). It has become evident that some of the relationships between the different underlying objectives need to be examined afresh, and ways of harmonizing policy and project approaches to accommodate a balance between them need to be recast.

Another important aspect is that of change in the parameters that underlie the emergence and evolution of community forestry. Chapter 5 first addresses the question of how shifts in approaches to environmental conservation and market liberalization could influence the future shape and extent of community forestry. It then examines the impact for community forestry, and for forestry as a whole, of the trend towards more pluralistic systems of forest management.

96 PART THREE: COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION 9797 CHAPTER 5 Key issues influencing community forestry

Changing perceptions of the linkages between conservation and development

ne of the most important factors shaping the development of community forestry has been the objective that it should con- O tribute not only to livelihood enhancement for poor rural users but also to the conservation of biodiversity. The theme of ‘forestry and sus- tainable livelihoods’ has come to be concerned as much with maintaining ecological stability as with sustaining income and material flows. However, as discussed in Chapter 3, it has become increasingly clear that it is difficult to successfully achieve both these objectives concurrently.

CHAPTER 5: Key issues influencing community forestry 99 100 PART THREE: COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION CHAPTER 5: Key issues influencing community forestry 101

Measures deemed necessary in order to protect or promote ecological values of trop- questionable. It has also been argued that tropical rain forests are more robust and able to absorb and ical forests nearly always constrain the ways in which local people can generate ben- recover from use than has usually been acknowl- efits for themselves from these forests. Conversely, local livelihood strategies often edged, and that they do not need to be protected against other uses to the extent that has been appear to threaten achievement of conservation goals, particularly when these are attempted (Sayer, 2000). Moreover, as much more being pursued through a ‘protected area’ approach. As one study of experience with of the remaining tropical forest genetic resource the latter has reported, “unambiguously successful and convincing examples where exists in managed landscapes than in protected areas, it could be more logical to focus more of the local people’s development needs have been effectively reconciled with biodiversity conservation attention on sustainable management conservation remain difficult to find” (Wells and Brandon, 1992). of what is in use. Many of these locally managed resources have a high measure of biodiversity (Hal- laday and Gilmour, 1995). Furthermore, recent research has also made clear that what might be As conserving global values of tropical rain forests, ple and the environment interrelate. It is argued considered by ecologists and foresters to be degra- Can community forestry be made compatible with con- serving global values, such as biodiversity and carbon such as biodiversity and , con- that there is need for greater appreciation that the dation or depletion of a forest resource can be con- sequestration, of tropical rain forests? tinue to feature strongly, it is possible that commu- poor may experience their own environmental prob- sidered to be transformation, and even improve- nity forestry will be subjected to more rigorous lems, which need to be addressed separately from ment, of the resource by those depending on it for efforts to make it compatible with such conserva- environmental policies seeking to satisfy concerns inputs into their livelihood systems (Leach and mosaic, of agricultural and agroforest systems that, tion objectives. If this were to be the case, it could about global values. To address these local concerns Mearns, 1996). though less species rich than forests, preserve be that conservation objectives become an even there is a need to move away from macroscale much more biodiversity than the alternatives more dominant factor in shaping community approaches and policies towards a more situation- Thus, there is growing acceptance that the pursuit of plantations or clearance to crop agriculture forestry than has been the case in the past. As was specific focus, reflecting the protective mechanisms of conservation has been too much driven by north- (Noordwijk et al.,1997). noted earlier, progress towards legalizing the use that local users themselves adopt, and the attributes ern concepts and donor preoccupations, at the rights of communities living in upland forest areas of a resource that they value and seek to conserve expense of those who depend on forests locally. It is Another conservation-related shift in policy thinking in Thailand has been held back by the growing (Forsyth and Leach, 1998). therefore quite likely that the conservation objec- that could influence aspects of community forestry strength of interests concerned about protecting the tive for community forestry will progressively shift is the revived interest in plantation forestry as a way capacity of these forest areas to supply water to This has been accompanied by increasing debate from a predominantly protective orientation of regenerating degraded areas and creating alterna- urban areas (Wittayapak,1996; Vandergeest, 1996). about the relevance and accuracy of the conven- towards encouragement of sustainable systems of tive sources of supply of forest products that could tional conservation thesis. There remain few, if any, producing livelihood benefits in as environmentally reduce the pressures on natural forests. It has been However, arguments are growing that the conven- pristine tropical forests. Virtually all have been friendly a way as possible (Freese, 1997). For exam- argued that pursuit of this objective through small- tional approach to the issue of the balance between affected by the activities of people, and the argu- ple, this could be done by encouraging options that holder tree-planting schemes could have both liveli- conservation and development at this level has been ments that it is necessary to isolate them from fur- result in landscapes like those found in parts of hood and environmental benefits (World Bank, based on flawed assumptions about how rural peo- ther human impact are coming to be seen as Southeast Asia, which maintain a patchwork, or 2000). However, this could confront some of the 102 PART THREE: COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION

constraints to smallholder tree growing discussed est management and utilization, and sometimes above. In addition, availability of the concessional ownership of the resource, governments are adopt- loan financing, which could be needed in order to ing market-based instruments (e.g. financial incen- make such planting viable on low-productivity sites, tives, market promotion and certification) to could also become increasingly difficult in the con- encourage and regulate sustainable forest manage- ditions of market liberalization and structural ment. Often, forestry authorities also are downsizing adjustment discussed in the following section. and restructuring, and in the process they are con- tracting out, corporatizing and privatizing such func- tions as monitoring and provision of technical sup- Extending market port services (Landell-Mills and Ford, 1999). liberalization and Most countries are still in the process of making As the use of forest resources becomes increasingly determined by market forces, more attention will need to be paid to such changes, which are predictably often creating ensuring that the poorer can continue to participate. structural adjustment some problems and exposing the need for further work on them. Instances of problems include the property. This can cause breakdown of collective and the land (Laarman, 1997). However, the he growing importance of policies of difficulties encountered by ejido forestry organiza- mechanisms for exclusion and control, and the changes brought about in the PPF area by market market liberalization and structural tions in parts of Mexico in continuing to manage effective privatization of the more valuable product liberalization have shown how this can result in adjustment has clearly been one of the T forests on a sustainable basis as government subsi- flows by those best able to take advantage of the increased difficulty in controlling overuse of the determining influences on the way community dies were withdrawn, and the difficulties faced by market opportunities. resource, in exclusion of poorer people from access forestry has evolved in recent times. The accompa- smaller and poorer ejidos once they had to buy in to benefit flows from the forest, and in the frag- nying goal of devolving away from government any technical and other support services when these Therefore, there is the likelihood that, without mentation and conversion of the forest resource activity that could be more effectively performed by were privatized (Taylor and Zabin, 2000). Similarly, countervailing measures, market liberalization will (Taylor and Zabin, 2000). others has been one of the driving forces behind the in China, concerns have arisen that, as access to accelerate the process by which communal forest transfer of responsibility for forest management and low-cost loan funds is withdrawn, tree planting by resources pass from collective to individual or cor- The task of ensuring continued collective control control to the local level. At the same time, the poorer households will no longer be profitable and porate control. Indeed, privatization of common of local forest resources, where this is needed for downsizing of government budgets available for will decline (Rozelle et al., 2000). pool resources features increasingly as a policy equity and environmental reasons, is consequently forestry can reduce the capacity of forest depart- measure in contemporary literature about manage- likely to become more challenging. Equally, as use ments to provide necessary support to the new Another impact of such macroeconomic and policy ment of natural resources. For instance, a recent of forest resources becomes increasingly deter- structures and to adequately continue to perform change has been the acceleration of the process of Latin American forest policy study argued that mined by market forces, more attention will need to functions that need to stay in the public domain, exposing community-level producers of forest prod- reserving areas of forest, such as those encompassed be paid to identifying the measures that will enable such as preserving non-market values of forests. ucts to market forces. As discussed above, this can by the Plan Piloto Forestal in Mexico, for the exclu- the poorer to continue to participate. This could This is being accompanied by growing privatization both create additional opportunities to generate sive use of the limited numbers of people who are mean revising regulations and support programmes of what, earlier, were public functions in the forest income and also heighten pressures on local institu- members of the user groups in question, excluded to make them available to small as well as larger par- sector. As the private sector takes over more of for- tions attempting to manage a resource as common other potentially more valuable uses of the resource ticipants, developing and encouraging innovative 104 PART THREE: COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION CHAPTER 5: Key issues influencing community forestry 105

forms of collaboration between community and pri- resource than from their incapacity to pursue these people they represent. Another common weakness vate interests (and formal- and informal-sector pro- claims effectively against more powerful actors occurs when local institutions are not able to cope ducers), and ensuring equitable participation of (Forsyth and Leach, 1998). with the complexities arising from conflicting claims local stakeholders in forest management arrange- on the resource from within increasingly fractured ments that need to accommodate multiple stake- user communities, and from competing demands on holders, a subject discussed in the next section. ENSURING MORE EFFECTIVE and interests in the resource from external stake- EMPOWERMENT OF LOCAL USERS holders. Again, this is likely to result in control being captured by minority interests. To recapitulate points that emerged from the dis- Community forestry cussion in Chapter 3, a number of causes can be It is increasingly recognized that these problems and the broader identified for the widespread failure of transfer of exist, and the search for more pluralistic arrange- responsibility and rights to result in effective ments is driven by awareness of the need to identify context of forestry empowerment of local users. One is failure to collective systems that can accommodate greater entrench the transfer in legislation. Too much of complexity and multiplicity of interests in forest It has been argued that some rights of local users are para- he enabling environment for the large decentralization is instead effected by decree, management. However, progress in identifying more mount and should not be subject to negotiation. and growing numbers of people whose administrative order or permit, providing rights and flexible and less rule-bound systems that function T involvement in community forestry is authority that can be withdrawn or, if challenged, satisfactorily is proving slow. Concerns have been through tree resources on their own land, or through are unlikely to be upheld by law. Another cause is raised that existing organizational mechanisms people’s right of self-determination (Sarin, 1999). processing and trading of forest products that they transfers of only limited rights, notably the wide- could be dismantled or could cease to function This possibility has led some to express concern that purchase, is likely to be determined mainly by fac- spread exclusion of rights over timber and other without new systems of coordination and collabora- the current enthusiasm for multiple stakeholder sys- tors other than those related to the forest, such as components of commercial value (Agrawal and tion taking their place (FAO, 1999). A related con- tems of local forest management could be more an land use and tenure, and access to markets and Ribot, 1999). Processes of empowerment may also cern is that, with the decline in the role and author- expression of ‘outsider’ conceptions than a realistic services. However, for the huge numbers of people fail to provide recipients with enough security ity of the State in forest management in favour of way of achieving a more equitable and effective who still need to draw upon forests, the principal because they are incomplete, as in China, where the collaborative systems, the latter may become domi- involvement for local users (Vira, 1999). issue is usually that of security of access to the creation of rights for households to grow timber was nated or appropriated by the more powerful users resource. Effective empowerment of those who partly offset by the tightening of controls over pri- (Sarin, 1999). Another dimension of community forestry that con- need to be involved in control and management of vate harvesting, transport and sale of timber tinues to attract attention and debate is the issue of the forest resource that they draw upon thus con- (Dachang, 2001). Given the political weakness of many local user how best to provide the external support that most tinues to be of paramount importance. To be effec- populations, there is thus a danger that they will be local forest management institutions will need in tive, empowerment needs not only to establish or Failure to implement devolution effectively fre- unable to participate in an equitable manner. It has some measure. Fully self-managing groups may recognize their rights of ownership or use, but also quently arises where the transfer of rights is made to been argued that some rights of local users are para- need little more than legal endorsement of their to enable the recipients to exercise their authority local bodies that are, in practice, appointees or mount and should not be subject to negotiation, and rights, government assistance in protecting and and rights. Failure frequently results less from peo- extensions of the central government, and are con- that immersion in a system subject to the agreement enforcing those rights when necessary, and access to ple’s lack of institutionally grounded claims on a sequently more responsive to the latter than to the of other interested parties could conflict with local government services. But many groups will need 106 PART THREE: COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION CHAPTER 5: Key issues influencing community forestry 107

port. It is a mistake to think that community forestry arisen because of failure to recognize the particular relevant to current government (and donor) con- is necessarily a low-cost route to sustainable forest skills, interests and agendas of different NGOs. cerns (Vira, 1997). However, it is not always clear management. Some may be interested in community forestry how they should respond. In many countries, forest because of the environmental implications; others departments continue to be responsible for regula- ENGAGING FOREST DEPARTMENTS may be involved as part of a mandate to support tory functions and direct management of large parts community development or the rural poor. Not all of the forest estate. Trying to combine this with AND CIVIL SOCIETY have proved to be equally helpful in the pursuit of transfer of control of parts of the forest estate to oth- In principle, as the main government agency with a community forestry. The confrontational positions ers creates understandable internal tensions and presence in forested rural areas, forest departments adopted by some advocacy NGOs have sometimes confusion. Some of the problems encountered in should be well placed to provide such support. hampered the development of promising joint man- co-management programmes reflect the ambiva- However, the potential to do so has often been lim- agement systems. The agendas pursued by some lence, or lack of clarity about seemingly conflicting ited by local distrust of the department due to past environmental and other special interest groups objectives, that this dual role can engender. It can policies and practices that placed foresters and local have proved on occasion to be not necessarily con- lead, for instance, to reluctance to authorize indige- people in confrontation with each other, and by lack gruent with the interests of the populations with nous local forest protection groups, because of a of balance in its role in co-management arrange- which they work. NGOs are often accountable only concern that this would enable them to encroach on ments of the kinds discussed in Chapter 3. This has to their leaders and donors, rather than to the com- the position of the forest department (Poffenberger,

A forester meeting with villagers. It is becoming increas- contributed to the rapid expansion of the presence munities with which they work. Therefore, it is 1996). Concerns about protecting the position of ingly clear that, in order to be effective, local forest man- of NGOs in many collective forest management important that there be clear understanding of the the forest department as a producer also underlie agement is going to need a high level of support. programmes, in which they act as intermediaries role of each civil society organization, and of the many of the restrictions placed on others who are between State and users, facilitate change at the vil- interest it represents, when it becomes involved in producing and trading particular forest products. more. Even relatively well-developed local institu- lage level, and provide training, extension, advisory community forestry (Thin et al., 1998). tions are likely to encounter difficulties in taking on and even marketing services. Other NGOs have There are a number of ways in which such con- responsibilities for environmental management taken on an advocacy role, influencing policy at It can also be important to ensure that government straints on achievement of a more balanced role for tasks previously performed by the central govern- local and national, and even international, levels. agencies are not encouraging NGO involvement to forest departments in collaborative forestry systems ment. When there are competing or conflicting avoid having to confront the need for internal might be reduced or removed. They include sepa- claims on the resource that involve stakeholders The involvement of NGOs in these ways has been change in order to undertake tasks that should be rating regulatory functions from involvement in for- from outside the community, issues may arise that enormously important and, overall, has greatly facil- their responsibility (Dove, 1995). Forest depart- est management and delivery of support services, need access to external sources of arbitration and itated the emergence of functioning forms of com- ments are now generally responsive to the argu- eliminating areas of avoidable competition with management to resolve. Though one of the argu- munity forestry. However, as experience with such ments that their traditional approach has failed to local producers for revenue and markets, and ments for devolution of responsibilities to local arrangements has accumulated, it is becoming clear secure sustainable forest management, and is no reducing pressures on forest departments of over- institutions was that this would reduce the costs of that they often need to be better focused in order to longer appropriate to the demands currently being ambitious targets that can force them to rely on forest management, it is becoming increasingly achieve the most effective and appropriate contri- placed upon the forest sector. There is often con- centralized and bureaucratic operational proce- clear that, in order to be effective, local forest man- bution of NGOs and other forms of civil society to siderable concern within departments that they dures. Forest departments could also pursue agement is also going to need a high level of sup- local forest management. Confusion has sometimes become more successful, and be seen as being more procedures for working with local partners that CHAPTER 5: Key issues influencing community forestry 109

is no longer the sole source of knowledge about how need to adapt to changing societal conditions and to manage forests, and the role of the forester will needs is a continuing imperative. In putting new often be as a facilitator to others engaged in forest arrangements in place to better reflect present management. Thirdly, the conventional perspective needs, there is a need to try to anticipate whether of foresters as the guardians of forests, and govern- they will also be relevant to further change in the ment regulation as the sole arbiter of conflicts over future. For instance, in what way would a sharp forest management and use, is changing to an decline in local demand for many forest products, as approach of social negotiation and consensus build- rural livelihood options expand, affect a structure ing (Wiersum, 1999). for forest management and control constructed around local collective institutions? There can be no Thus, recent changes in forestry increasingly reflect single answer to such a question, but it will surely interpretations of the role that the forest sector call for flexible governance systems that can readily needs to play in developments that were first artic- be adapted to cope with whatever change does ulated through community forestry. However, the emerge.

Community forestry is changing to become more effective and responsive to local needs and aspirations.

encourage more flexibility and willingness to adapt spread, sustainable potential. Much of what is hap- to the particular attitudes, needs and constraints pening at present involves an element of trial and encountered in each location. For instance, the error. experience with JFM projects in India has shown to what extent progress and performance relate to the What does seem clear is that as community forestry ability of individual officials to establish a rapport becomes an increasingly important part of the overall with the people with whom they work, and to adapt forest and tree resource sector, it is being reflected in standard procedures to what is needed locally (Vira, important shifts in the ways in which forest man- 1997). agement as a whole is being pursued. Firstly, the norm of forests under State custody and managed In sum, thinking about ways in which community by professional foresters following normative forestry should change in order to become more prescriptions has given way to forest situations effective and responsive to local needs and aspira- characterized by multiple users and more empirical tions is currently undergoing change. Different management, reflecting particular objectives and approaches are being developed and tried out, but it possibilities in each situation. Secondly, this broad- is too soon to be able to determine with any confi- ening out introduces management practices other dence which approach will prove to have wide- than those based on scientific forestry. The forester CHAPTER 6 Conclusions

he importance of the roles that forests and forestry play in rural livelihoods is by now probably universally recognized. The need T to address this through a reorientation of forestry to involve rural users who draw upon forests for part of their needs is also widely accepted. These shifts in emphasis and approach are becoming all the more important as the State reduces its involvement in forestry and the sector has to adjust to growing participation by civil society and private-sector interests. Many countries are still at an early stage in the process of developing and introducing forms of community forestry appropriate to their situations. In others community forestry is by now a well-established and integral part of the framework for management and use of forest resources. The

CHAPTER 6: Conclusions 111 112 PART THREE: COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN TRANSITION CHAPTER 6: Conclusions 113

experience of some of the longer-established and more flexible of these community that is more situation specific and less formulaic. achieve too much too quickly, so there is also a risk Another is to address the difficulties that forest of overloading community forestry. It is important to forestry initiatives has been encouraging. It has become clear that, in the right cir- departments are encountering. recognize the limits to how much change can be cumstances, local or joint control does result in increases in product and other bene- achieved within the framework of forest-oriented At the same time, exaggerated expectations need to programmes, and to keep community forestry in fit flows to local users, and can bring about an improvement in the condition of the be avoided. Just as there is a danger in trying to perspective. resource. Agroforestry outputs have often also become more important components of rural household livelihood systems.

Not surprisingly, though, these experiences have ficient transparency and accountability to ensure often exposed problems and constraints. Acceptance equitable participation by all their members. of the importance of devolution to local levels has not always been accompanied by the political, leg- That difficulties have arisen has sometimes been islative and regulatory measures needed to empower because of the speed and extent of the changes that those to whom responsibility is being passed. People are taking place and the exposure that this brings to are sometimes being invited to take on more of the unfamiliar problems. Changes have sometimes been responsibilities and costs of managing forests with- promoted before the capacity to implement them is out obtaining a commensurate increase in security of in place. Strong promotion of community manage- their rights, and they are thereby being put at risk. ment, often at the urging of donors, has frequently Individual initiatives to participate in markets for for- imposed pressures on forestry bureaucracies that est products are, similarly, being impeded or under- they have found difficult to absorb. mined by lack of progress in removing inappropriate restrictions and regulations. Where this is so, it could be desirable if there were now to be a period of consolidation, moving from Progress in evolving ways of implementing more gen- promotion to critical analysis, with increased con- uinely participatory forms of local forest manage- sideration of how best to address weaknesses and ment, capable of accommodating the interests of sev- problems that have arisen. One need is to better eral different categories of stakeholder, has also often understand the circumstances under which local lagged. In particular, the local institutions to which control is, and is not, likely to succeed, thereby responsibility for forests to be managed collectively avoiding initiatives in situations that are not con- has been devolved have often proved to need support, ducive to collective management. Another need is to or have been found to function in ways that lack suf- encourage a more flexible and responsive approach References 115

References

Adams, W.M. & Hulme, D. 1999. Conservation and community: changing narratives, policies and practices in African conservation. Paper prepared for the conference on African Environments: Past and Present, July 1999, Oxford.

Agrawal, A. 1999. Community-in-conservation: tracing the outlines of an enchanting concept. In R. Jeffery & N. Sundar, eds. A new moral economy for India’s forests? New Delhi, Sage Publica- tions.

Agrawal, A. & Ostrom, E. 1999. Collective action, property rights and devolution: a comparative examination of forest and protected area management in India and Nepal. Paper presented at the CGIAR International Workshop on Collective Action, Property Rights and Devolution of Natural Resource Management, 21-25 June 1999, Puerto Azul, Philippines.

Agrawal, A. & Ribot, J. 1999. Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33: 473-502.

Anderson, A.B. & Ioris, E.M. 1992. The logic of extraction: resource management and income gen- eration by extractive producers in the Amazon. In K.H. Redford & C. Padoch, eds. Conservation of neotropical forests. New York, Columbia University Press.

Anderson, J., Clément, J. & Crowder, L.V. 1998. Accommodating conflicting interests in forestry concepts emerging from pluralism. Unasylva, 49(3): 3-10.

Arnold, J.E.M. 1992. Community forestry: ten years in review. Community Forestry Note 7, Rev. 1. Rome, FAO.

Arnold, J.E.M. 1998. Managing forests as common property. Forestry Paper 136. Rome, FAO.

Arnold, J.E.M. & Dewees, P.A., eds. 1997. Farms, trees and farmers: responses to agricultural inten- sification. London, Earthscan Publications. (Also published as Tree management in farmer strate- gies: responses to agricultural intensification. 1995. Oxford, Oxford University Press.)

Arnold, J.E.M., Liedholm, C., Mead, D. & Townson, I.M. 1994. Structure and growth of small enterprises using forest products in southern and eastern Africa. OFI Occasional Papers No. 47, Oxford, Oxford Forestry Institute; and GEMINI Working Paper No. 48. Bethesda, Growth and Equity through Microenterprise Investments and Institutions (GEMINI) Project. 116 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY References 117

Arnold, J.E.M. & Stewart, W.C. 1991. Common property resource management in India. Tropical Carney, D., ed. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make? London, Depart- Forestry Papers 24. Oxford, Oxford Forestry Institute. ment for International Development.

Arnold, M. 1997. Trees as out-grower crops for forest industries: experience from the Philippines and Castanos, L.J. 1994. The uprising in Chiapas, Mexico: the impact of structural adjustment and South Africa. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper 22a. London, Overseas Development forestry reforms. Unasylva, 45(179). Institute (ODI). Cavendish, W.P. 1997. The economics of natural resource utilisation by communal area farmers of Ascher, W. 1995. Communities and sustainable forestry in developing countries. San Francisco, The Zimbabwe. Oxford, University of Oxford. (Thesis) International Center for Self-Governance. Chapela, F. 1999. The development of community forest policy in Mexico. Submitted to Environ- Baland, J-M. & Platteau, J-P. 1996. Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural mental History. communities? Oxford, Clarendon Press, for FAO. Clarke, J., Magagula, L. & von Maltitz, G. 1997. Timber farming: increasing the contribution by Baumann, P. 2000. Equity and efficiency in contract farming schemes: the experience of agricultural small growers to timber production. National Forestry Action Programme, Industrial Forestry tree crops. Working Paper 139. London, ODI. Working Group: Key Issues paper (draft). Pretoria, South Africa, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). Berkes, F. 1997. New and not-so-new directions in the use of the commons: co-management. The Common Property Resource Digest, 42: 5-7. Clarke, R. 1987. Restoring the balance: women and forest resources. Rome, FAO.

Bromley, D.W. & Cernea, M.M. 1989. The management of common property natural resources: some Current, D., Lutz, E. & Scherr, S. 1995. Adoption of agroforestry. In D. Current, E. Lutz & conceptual and operational fallacies. World Bank Discussion Paper No. 57. Washington, DC, S. Scherr, eds. Costs, benefits and farmer adoption of agroforestry. World Bank Environment Paper World Bank. No. 114. Washington, DC, World Bank. Browder, J.O. 1992. The limits of extractivism: tropical forest strategies beyond extractive reserves. Dachang, L. 2001. Tenure and management of non-State forests in China since 1950: a historical Bioscience, 42(3): 174-182. review. Environmental History, 6(2): 239-263. Brown, D. 1999. Principles and practice of forest co-management: evidence from West-Central Africa. Davies, A.G. & Richards, P. 1991. Rain forest in Mende life: resources and subsistence strategies in European Union Tropical Forestry Paper 2. London, ODI. rural communities around the Gola North Forest Reserve (Sierra Leone). Report to ESCOR, UK- Bruce, J.W. 1999. Legal bases for the management of forest resources as common property. Community Overseas Development Administration (ODA). Forestry Note 14. Rome, FAO. Davis, S.H. & Wali, A. 1993. Indigenous territories and tropical forest management in Latin America. Buckles, D., ed. 1999. Cultivating peace: conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. Policy Research Working Papers, Series 1100, Environmental Assessments and Programs. Wash- International Development Research Centre (IRDC) and World Bank. ington, DC, World Bank.

Byron, N. & Arnold, M. 1999. What futures for the people of the tropical forests? World Develop- De Beer, J. & McDermott, M. 1989. The economic value of non-timber forest products in Southeast ment, 27(5): 789-805. Asia. Amsterdam, Netherlands Committee for the World Conservation Union (IUCN).

Campbell, J.G. 1990. Whose land is this? Overlapping tenure, tenure transitions, tenure options and ten- Desmond, H. & Race, D. 2000. Global survey and analytical framework for forestry out-grower urial technology in India’s common property resources. Paper presented to the First Conference of the arrangements: final report. Prepared by the Department of Forestry, Australian National Univer- International Association for the Study of Common Property, 27-30 September 1990, Durham, USA. sity, for FAO. 118 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY References 119

Dewees, P.A. 1989. The woodfuel crisis reconsidered: observations on the dynamics of abundance and FAO. 1999. Pluralism and sustainable forestry and rural development. Proceedings of an international scarcity. World Development, 17(8): 1159-1172. workshop, 9-12 December 1997, Rome.

Dewees, P.A. 1997. Farmer responses to tree scarcity: the case of woodfuel. In J.E.M. Arnold & P.A. Dewees, Fisher, R.J. 1995. Collaborative management of forests for conservation and development. Issues in eds. Farms, trees and farmers: responses to agricultural intensification. London, Earthscan Publications. Forest Conservation. IUCN/World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Dewees, P.A. & Saxena, N.C. 1997. Tree growing and household land and labour allocation: case Fisher, R.J. 1999. Devolution and decentralization of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. studies from Kenya and India. In J.E.M. Arnold & P.A. Dewees, eds. Farms, trees and farmers: Unasylva, 50(1999): 3-5. responses to agricultural intensification. London, Earthscan Publications. Fisseha, Y. 1987. Small-scale forest-based processing enterprises. Forestry Paper 79. Rome, FAO. Dewees, P.A. & Scherr, S.A. 1996. Policies and markets for non-timber tree products. EPTD Discus- sion Paper 16. Washington, DC, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Forsyth, T. & Leach, M., with I. Scoones. 1998. Poverty and environment: priorities for research and policy, an overview study. Prepared for the UNDP and European Commission, Brighton, Insti- Dove, M.R. 1993. A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development. Environmental Con- tute of Development Studies. servation, 20(1): 17-24. Fortmann, L. 1985. The tree tenure factor in agroforestry with particular reference to Africa. Agro- Dove, M.R. 1995. The theory of social forestry intervention: the state of the art in Asia. Agroforestry forestry Systems, 2(4): 231-248. Systems, 30: 315-340. Fox, J. 1996. Comments contributed to the FAO (FTPP) electronic conference on Addressing Nat- Dubois, O. 1999. Assessing local resilience and getting roles right in collaborative forest management: ural Resource Conflicts through Community Forestry. FTP Conflict Management Series. Rome, some current issues and a potential tool, with special reference to sub-Saharan Africa. In Pluralism FAO. and sustainable forestry and rural development. Proceedings of an international workshop, 9-12 December 1997, Rome, FAO. Freese, F. 1997. The commercial, consumptive use of wild species: managing it for the benefit of biodiversity. WWF Discussion Paper. Washington, DC, WWF. Evans, M.I. 1993. Conservation by commercialization. In C.M. Hladick, A. Hladick, O.F. Linares, H. Pagezy, A. Semple & M. Hadley, eds. Tropical forests, people and food. MAB Series, Vol. 13. Paris, Gilmour, D.A. 1997. Rearranging trees in the landscape in the Middle Hills of Nepal. In J.E.M. UNESCO. Arnold & P.A. Dewees, eds. Farms, trees and farmers: responses to agricultural intensification. Lon- don, Earthscan Publications. Falconer, J. 1990. The major significance of “minor” forest products: the local use and value of forests in the West African humid forest zone. Community Forestry Note 6. Rome, FAO. Gilmour, D.A. & Fisher, R.J. 1991. Villagers, forests and foresters: the philosophy, process and prac- tice of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu, Sahayogi Press. Falconer, J. & Arnold, J.E.M. 1989. Household food security and forestry: an analysis of socioeconomic issues. Community Forestry Note 1. Rome, FAO. Gilmour, D.A. & Fisher, R.J. 1997. Evolution in community forestry: contesting forest resources. In M. Victor, C. Lang & J. Bornemeier, eds. Community forestry at a crossroads: reflections and future FAO. 1978. Forestry for local community development. Forestry Paper 7. Rome. directions in the development of community forestry. (Proceedings of an international seminar, 17-19 FAO. 1987. Small-scale forest-based processing enterprises. Forestry Paper 79. Rome. July 1997, Bangkok.) Bangkok, Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC).

FAO. 1995. Report of the international expert consultation on non-wood forest products. Non-Wood For- Godoy, R.A. 1992. Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation. World Development, est Products 3. Rome. 20(5): 713-725. 120 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY References 121

Goebel, A. 1999. The shift from common property to privatized tenure in resettlement area wood- Hobley, M. 1996. Participatory forestry: the process of change in India and Nepal. Rural Development lands in Zimbabwe. The Common Property Resource Digest, 48: 11-12. Forestry Study Guide. ODI.

Grimble, R.J. & Chan, M.-K. 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in Hopkins, J.C., Scherr, S.J. & Gruhn, P. 1994. Food security and the commons: evidence from developing countries: some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and Niger. Draft report to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-Niger. effective. Natural Resources Forum, 19(2): 113-124. Washington, DC, IFPRI.

Haggblade, S. & Liedholm, C. 1991. Agriculture, rural labor markets and evolution of the rural non- Jeffery, R., Sundar, N. & Khanna, P. 1998. Joint forest management: a silent revolution amongst for- farm economy. GEMINI Working Paper No. 19. Bethesda, GEMINI Project. est department staff? Paper presented at the Workshop on Participatory Natural Resource Man- agement, 6-7 April 1998, Mansfield College, Oxford. Haggblade, S. & Mead, D.C. 1998. An overview of policies and programs for promoting growth of the rural nonfarm economy. Paper prepared for IFPRI Conference on Strategies for Stimulating Jodha, N.S. 1990. Rural common property resources: contributions and crisis. Economic and Politi- Growth of the Rural Nonfarm Economy in Developing Countries, 17-21 May 1998, Airlie cal Weekly Quarterly Review of Agriculture, 25(26). House, Virginia. Kaimowitz, D., Pachero, P., Johnson J., Pavez, I., Vallejos C. & Vélez, R. 1998/1999. Local gov- Halladay, P. & Gilmour, D.A., eds. 1995. Conserving biodiversity outside protected areas: the role of ernments and forests in the Bolivian lowlands. Rural Development Forestry Network Paper traditional agro-ecosystems. IUCN Forest Conservation Programme. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. No. 24b. London, ODI.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243-1248. Kamara, J.N. 1986. Firewood energy in Sierra Leone: production, marketing and household use pat- terns. Verlag Weltarchiv Studies No. 9. Hamburg. Harriss, J. & de Renzio, P. 1997. ‘Missing link’ or analytically missing?: the concept of social capi- tal. Journal of International Development, 9(7): 919-937. Khare, A., Sarin, M., Saxena, N.C., Palit, S., Bathia, S., Vania, F. & Satyanarayana, M. 2000. Joint forest management: policy, practice and prospects. Policy that Works for Forests and Hazell, P. & Reardon, T. 1998. Interactions among the rural nonfarm economy, poverty and the People, Series No. 3. London, International Institute for Environment and Development environment in resource-poor areas. Paper prepared for IFPRI Conference on Strategies for (IIED). Stimulating Growth of the Rural Nonfarm Economy in Developing Countries, 17-21 May 1998, Airlie House, Virginia. Kumar, N., Saxena, N.C., Alagh, Y.K. & Mitra, K. 2000. Alleviating poverty through participatory forestry development: an evaluation of India’s forest development and World Bank assistance. Hilario, M.P. & Sabban, M.V.M. 1997. Delineation and recognition of ancestral domain: imple- Preliminary Report, Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank. mentation issues and opportunities in Palawan. Policy Research Brief 2.1, Participatory Uplands Management Program. Manila, De La Salle University. Laarman, J.G. 1997. Government policies affecting forests in Latin America: an agenda for discussion. Washington, DC, Environment Division, Inter-American Development Bank. Hill, I. & Shields, D. 1998. Incentives for joint forest management in India: analytical methods and case studies. World Bank Technical Paper No. 394. Washington, DC, World Bank. Landell-Mills, N. & Ford, J. 1999. Privatising sustainable forestry: a global review of trends and chal- lenges. London, IIED. Hirsch, P. 1997. Community forestry revisited: messages from the periphery. In M. Victor, C. Lang & J. Bornemeier, eds. Community forestry at a crossroads: reflections and future directions in the Landell-Mills, N., Ford, J. & Thornber, K. 1999. Country profile for Mexico. Working Paper pre- development of community forestry. RECOFTC Report No. 16. Bangkok, RECOFTC. pared for the Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry programme. London, IIED. 122 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY References 123

Lawry, S.W. 1989. Tenure policy in natural resource management in Sahelian West Africa. LTC Paper May, P.H., Anderson, A.B., Balick, M.J. & Unruh, J. 1985. Babaçu palm in the agroforestry sys- 130. Madison, Land Tenure Center (LTC), University of Wisconsin. tems in Brazil’s mid-north region. Agroforestry Systems, 3(39): 275-295.

Leach, M. 1999. Plural perspectives and institutional dynamics: challenges for community forestry. McElwee, P.D. 1994. Common property and commercialisation: developing appropriate tools for Paper presented at the IAC Executive Seminar on Decision-making in Natural Resources Man- analysis. Oxford Forestry Institute, University of Oxford. (Dissertation) agement with a Focus on Adaptive Management, 22-24 September 1999, Wageningen. McKean, M.A. 2000. Common property: what is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work? In Leach, M. & Fairhead, J. 1994. The forest islands of Kissidougou: social dynamics of environmen- C.C. Gibson, M.A. McKean & E. Ostrom, eds. People and forests: communities, institutions and tal change in West Africa’s forest-savanna mosaic. Report to ESCOR, UK-ODA. governance. Cambridge and London, The MIT Press.

Leach, M. & Mearns, R. 1996. Challenging received wisdom in Africa. In M. Leach & R. Mearns, McKean, M.A. & Ostrom, E. 1995. Common property regimes in the forest: just a relic from the eds. The lie of the land: challenging received wisdom on the African environment. London, The past? Unasylva, 180: 3-15. International African Institute. Messerschmidt, D.A., ed. 1993. Common forest resource management: annotated bibliography of Leach, M., Mearns, R. & Scoones, I. 1997. Community-based sustainable development: consen- Asia, Africa and Latin America. Community Forestry Note 11. Rome, FAO. sus or conflict? IDS Bulletin, 28: 4. Michon, G. & de Foresta, H. 1999. The Indonesian agro-forest model: forest resource management Lee, K.N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology, 3(2). and biodiversity conservation. In L.E. Buck, J.P. Lassoie & E.C.M. Fernandes, eds. Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems. Boca Raton, CRC Press/Lewis Publishers. Liedholm, C. & Mead, D.C. 1993. The structure and growth of microenterprises in southern and east- ern Africa. GEMINI Working Paper No. 36. Bethesda, GEMINI Project. Murphree, M.W. 1996. Wildlife in sustainable development: approaches to community participa- Lim Hin Fui & Jamaluddin Ismail. 1994. The uses of non-timber forest products in Pasoh Forest tion. Paper presented to the ODA African Wildlife Policy Consultation, 18-19 April, Sunning- Reserve, Malaysia. Research Pamphlet No. 113. Malaysia, Forest Research Institute. dale, UK.

Lindsay, J.M. 1994. Law and community in the management of India’s state forests. Working Papers. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1986. Proceedings of the conference on common property Cambridge, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. resource management. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.

Lynch, O.J. & Talbott, K. 1995. Balancing acts: community-based forest management and national Neumann, R.P. 1996. Forest products research in relation to conservation policies in Africa. In law in Asia and the Pacific. Washington, DC, World Resources Institute (WRI). M. Ruiz Pérez & J.E.M. Arnold, eds. Current issues in non-timber forest products research. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)/ODA. Madge, C. 1990. Money, medicine and masquerades: women, collecting and rural development in The Gambia. Birmingham, UK, School of Geography, Faculty of Arts of the University of Birm- Noordwijk, M. van, Tomich, T.P., de Foresta, H. & Michon, G. 1997. To segregate – or to inte- ingham. (Thesis) grate. Agroforestry Today, January-March 1997.

Malla, Y.M. 1997. Stakeholders’ responses to changes in forest policies. Paper prepared for the FAO Ogle, B. 1996. People’s dependency on forests for food security. Some lessons learnt from a pro- Workshop on Pluralism, Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development, 9-12 December 1997, Rome. gramme of case studies. In M. Ruiz Pérez & J.E.M. Arnold, eds. Current issues in non-timber for- est products research. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR/ODA. Malla, Y.M. 1999. Tree management and household strategies in a changing rural economy: beyond the use of direct incentives. Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department. Reading, Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cam- UK, University of Reading. bridge, Cambridge University Press. 124 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY References 125

Ostrom, E. 1999. Self-Governance and Forest Resources. Occasional Paper No. 20. Bogor, Indonesia, Poffenberger, M. & Singh, C. 1996. Communities and the State: re-establishing the balance in CIFOR. Indian forest policy. In M. Poffenberger & B. McGean, eds. Village voices, forest choices: joint forest management in India. New Delhi, Oxford University Press. Pattnaik, B.K. & Dutta, S. 1997. JFM in South-West Bengal: a study in participatory development. Economic and Political Weekly, 13 December 1997. Posey, D.A. 1982. The keepers of the forest. Garden, 6: 18-24.

Peluso, N.L. 1993. The impact of social and environmental change on forest management. A case Putnam, R. 1993. The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13. study from West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Community Forestry Case Study Series 8. Rome, FAO. Redford, K.H. & Mansour, J.A., eds. 1996. Traditional peoples and biodiversity conservation in large Peluso, N.L. & Padoch, C. 1996. Changing resource rights in managed forests of West Kaliman- tropical landscapes. Arlington, VI, America Verde Publications, The Nature Conservancy. tan. In N.L. Peluso & C. Padoch, eds. Borneo in transition: people, forests, conservation and devel- Ribot, J.C. 1999. Decentralization, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: legal instru- opment. Singapore, Oxford University Press. ments of political administrative control. Africa, 69(1). Peluso, N.L., Vandergeest, P. & Potter, L. 1995. Social aspects of forestry in Southeast Asia: a review Richards, E.M. 1992. The forest ejidos of south-east Mexico: a case study of participatory natural for- of postwar trends in the scholarly literature. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 26(1): 196-218. est management. Network Paper 13c, Rural Development Forestry Network. London, ODI. Pendzich, C., Thomas, G. & Wohigenant, T. 1994. The role of alternative conflict management in Richards, M., Kanel, K., Maharjan, M. & Davies, J. 1999. Towards participatory economic analy- community forestry. Forests, Trees and People Working Paper 1. Rome, FAO. sis by forest user groups in Nepal. London, ODI.

Perl, M.A., Kiernan, M.J., McCaffrey, D., Buschbacher, R.J. & Batmanian, G.J. 1991. Views Richards, M., Navarro, G. & Vargas, A. 1995. Decentralizing forest management and conservation from the forest: natural forest management initiatives in Latin America. Washington, DC, Tropical in Central America. Working Paper No. 93. London, ODI. Forestry Program, WWF. Roberts, S. & Dubois, O. 1996. The role of social/farm forestry schemes in supplying fibre to the pulp Peters, C.M., Gentry, A.H. & Mendelsohn, R.O. 1989. Valuation of an Amazonian . and paper industry. Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle: Sub-Study Series 6. London, IIED. Nature, 339: 655-656. Rojas, M. 1989. Women in community forestry: a field guide for project design and implementation. Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Zarin, D., Padoch, C. & Rabelo, F. 1998. The forest and the trees: man- Community Forestry Guidelines, No. 1. Rome, FAO. aging Amazonian landscapes for timber production. (Draft) Rojas, M. 1994. Integrating gender considerations into FAO forestry projects. Community Forestry Plotkin, M. & Famolare, L. 1992. Preface. In M. Plotkin & L. Famolare, eds. Sustainable harvest Guidelines, No. 2. Rome, FAO. and marketing of rain forest products. Washington, DC, Island Press. Rozelle, S., Huang, J., Husain, S.A. & Zazueta, A. 2000. From afforestation to poverty alleviation Poffenberger, M., ed. 1990. Keepers of the forest: land management alternatives in Southeast Asia. and natural forest management: an evaluation of China’s forest department and World Bank West Hartford, USA, Kumarian Press. assistance. Preliminary Report. Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank.

Poffenberger, M. 1996. Grassroots forest protection: eastern Indian experiences. Research Network Sarin, M. 1998. Policy goals and JFM practice: an analysis of institutional arrangements and out- Report No. 7. Asia Forest Network. comes. Draft report for IIED and WWF-India.

Poffenberger, M. & McGean, B., eds. 1996. Village voices, forest choices: joint forest management Sarin, M. 1999. Comments on the Accommodating Multiple Interests in Local Forest Management in India. New Delhi, Oxford University Press. e-mail network. Rome, FAO. 126 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY References 127

Saxena, N.C. 1992. Adoption and rejection of eucalyptus on farms in north-west India. Oxford, Uni- Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). 1990. Evaluation of the versity of Oxford. (Thesis) (Published in 1994 as India’s eucalyptus craze: the god that failed. New SIDA-supported Bihar social forestry project for Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas, India. Delhi, Sage Publications.) Report to the Swedish International Development Authority, March 1990.

Saxena, N.C. 1997. The saga of participatory forest management in India. CIFOR Special Publication, Taylor, P.L. & Zabin, C. 2000. Neoliberal reform and sustainable forest management in Quintana CIFOR. Roo, Mexico: rethinking the institutional framework of the Forestry Pilot Plan. Agriculture and Human Values, 17(2): 141-156. Sayer, J. 2000. Exploding the myth of deforestation. The Asian Wall Street Journal, 24 January 2000. Terry, M.E. 1984. Botswanacraft and Hambukushu basketry: the effects of a major marketing oper- Scherr, S.A. 1997. Tree growing to meet household needs: farmer strategies in western Kenya. In ation on a group of African people, their traditional craft, and the natural resources. Report to J.E.M. Arnold & P.A. Dewees, eds. Farms, trees and farmers: responses to agricultural intensifica- the Botswanacraft Marketing Company, Estha, Botswana. tion. London, Earthscan Publications. Thin, N., Neeraj, P. & Prafulla, G. 1998. Muddles about the middle: NGOs as intermediaries in Shepherd, G. 1992. Managing Africa’s tropical dry forests: a review of indigenous methods. Agricultural JFM. Edinburgh Papers in South Asian Studies No. 12. Edinburgh, Department of Social Occasional Paper 14. London, ODI. Anthropology, University of Edinburgh.

Shepherd, G. & Gill, G. 1999. Community forestry and rural livelihoods in Nepal: issues and options Thomson, J.T. 1992. A framework for analyzing institutional incentives in community forestry. Com- for the future of the Nepal-UK community forestry project. London, ODI. munity Forestry Note 10. Rome, FAO.

Shrestha, K.B. 1996. Nepal Madhyasthata Samuha: community forestry in Nepal – an overview of Townson, I.M. 1995a. Forest products and household incomes: a review and annotated bibliography. conflicts. Discussion Paper Series No. MNR 96/2. Kathmandu, International Centre for Inte- Tropical Forestry Papers 31. Oxford, Centre for International Forestry Research and Oxford grated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). Forestry Institute.

Shrestha, N.K. & Britt, C. 1997. Crafting community forestry: networking and federation-building Townson, I.M. 1995b. Patterns of non-timber forest products enterprise activity in the forest zone of experiences. In M. Victor, C. Lang & J. Bornemeier, eds. Community forestry at a crossroads: southern Ghana: main report. Report to the ODA Forestry Research Programme, Oxford. reflections and future directions in the development of community forestry. Proceedings of an Inter- national Seminar, 17-19 July 1997, Bangkok. Bangkok, RECOFTC. Vandergeest, P. 1996. Property rights in protected areas: obstacles to community involvement as a solution in Thailand. Environmental Conservation, 23(3): 259-268. Simula, M. & Ghazali, B.H. 1996. Timber certification in transition. Tropical Forest Update, 6(4): 20-22. Varughese, G. 2000. Population and forest dynamics in the hills of Nepal: institutional remedies by Southgate, D. 1998. Tropical forest conservation: an economic assessment of the alternatives in Latin rural communities. In C.G. Gibson, M.A. McKean & E. Ostrom, eds. People and forests: com- America. New York, Oxford University Press. munities, institutions, and governance. Cambridge and London, The MIT Press.

Southgate, D. & Runge, C.F. 1990. The institutional origins of deforestation in Latin America. Vira, B. 1997. Deconstructing participatory forest management: towards a tenable typology. OCEES Paper prepared for the Conference on Economic Catalysts to Ecological Change, February, Research Paper No. 11. Oxford, Oxford Centre for the Environment, Ethics and Society, Mans- 1990, Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida. field College.

Sundar, N. & Jeffery, R. 1999. Introduction. In R. Jeffery & N. Sundar, eds. A new moral economy Vira, B. 1999. Comments on the Accommodating Multiple Interests in Local Forest Management for India’s forests? New Delhi, Sage Publications. e-mail network. Rome, FAO. 128 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY Community Forestry Publications 129

Vira, B., Dubois, O, Daniels, S.E. & Walker, G.B. 1998. Institutional pluralism in forestry: con- siderations of analytical and operational tools. Unasylva, 49(194). Community Forestry Publications Warner, K. 1993. Patterns of tree growing by farmers in eastern Africa. Tropical Forestry Papers 27. Oxford and Nairobi, Oxford Forestry Institute and International Centre for Research in Agro- COMMUNITY FORESTRY NOTES forestry (ICRAF). 1. Household food security and forestry: an analysis of socio-economic issues, 1989 (Ar/E/F/S) Wells, M. & Brandon, K., with L. Hannah. 1992. People and parks: linking protected area man- 2. Community forestry: participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation, 1989 (E/F/S) agement with local communities. World Bank/WWF/USAID. Washington, DC, World Bank. 3. Community forestry: rapid appraisal, 1989 (E/F/S) 4. Community forestry: herders’ decision-making in natural resources management in arid and semi-arid Wentzel, S. 1998. Social forestry in Latin America: Middle/Central America: Mexico. (Unpublished Africa, 1990 (E/F) notes) 5. Community forestry: rapid appraisal of tree and land tenure, 1989 (E/F/S) Wentzel, S. 1999. Social forestry in Latin America – a first overview of the issues. GTZ Wald-Info, 6. The major significance of ‘minor’ forest products: the local use and value of forests in the West African February 1999 (24): 36-53. humid forest zone, 1990 (E) 7. Community forestry: ten years in review, 1991 (E/F/S) Wiersum, K.F. 1999. Social forestry: changing perspectives in forestry science and practice? The 8. Shifting cultivators: local technical knowledge and natural resource management in the humid tropics, Netherlands, Wageningen Agricultural University. (Thesis) 1991 (E/F/S) Wilde, V. & Vainio-Mattila, A. 1995. The gender analysis and forestry international training package. 9. Socioeconomic attributes of trees and tree planting practices, 1991 (E/F/S) Rome, FAO. 10. A framework for analyzing institutional incentives in community forestry, 1992 (E/F/S) 11. Common forest resource management: annotated bibliography of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1993 Wittayapak, C. 1996. Forestry without legal bases: Thailand’s experience. Common Property Resource Digest, March 1996. (E/F /S ) 12. Introducing community forestry: annotated listing of topics and readings, 1994 (E) Wollenberg, E. 1998. A conceptual framework and typology for explaining outcomes of local forest 13. What about the wild animals? Wild animal species in community forestry in the tropics, 1995 (E) management. Journal of World Forest Resource Management, 9(1): 1-35. 14. Legal bases for the management of forest resources as common property, 1999 (E) World Bank. 1998. India, West Bengal forestry project. Implementation completion report. Rural Development Unit, South Asia Region, World Bank, Washington, DC. (Draft) COMMUNITY FORESTRY CASE STUDIES

World Bank. 2000. A review of the World Bank’s 1991 forest strategy and its implementation. Vol- 1. Case studies of farm forestry and wasteland development in Gujarat, India, 1988 (E) ume I: main report. Preliminary report, 13 January 2000, Operations Evaluation Department, 2. Forestland for the people. A forest village project in Northeast Thailand, 1988 (E) World Bank, Washington, DC. 3. Women’s role in dynamic forest-based small scale enterprises. Case studies on uppage and lacquerware from India, 1991 (E❍) 4. Case studies in forest-based small scale enterprises in Asia. Rattan, matchmaking and handicrafts, 1991 (E❍) 5. Social and economic incentives for smallholder tree growing. A case study from Murang’a District, Kenya, 1993 (E) 130 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY Community Forestry Publications 131

6. Shifting cultivators of Indonesia: marauders or managers of the forest? Rice production and forest use COMMUNITY FORESTRY AUDIOVISUALS AND SLIDE BOOKLETS among the Uma’ Jalan of East Kalimantan, 1993 (E) • Forestry and food security, 1993 (E/F/S) 7. Peasant participation in community . Four communities in the Department of Cuzco, Peru, • Fruits of our work: women in community forestry, Tanzania [slide booklet], 1991 (E) 1993 (E) • Gender analysis for forestry development planning – why? & how? [video], 1996 (E) 8. The impact of social and environmental change on forest management. A case study from West Kali- • Gender analysis for forestry development planning – why? & how? [slide booklet], 1997 (E) mantan, Indonesia, 1993 (E) • What is a tree? [video], 1994 (E/F) 9. Tree and land tenure in the Eastern Terai, Nepal. A case study from the Siraha and Saptari Districts, • What is a tree? [slide booklet], 1995 (E) Nepal, 1993 (E) • Women and community forestry in Sudan [slide booklet], 1991 (E) 10. Tree and land tenure: using rapid appraisal to study natural resource management. A case study from Anivorano, Madagascar, 1995 (E) 11. Shifting cultivation in Bhutan: a gradual approach to modifying land use patterns. A case study from COMMUNITY FORESTRY CARTOON BOOKLETS Pema Gatshel District, Bhutan, 1995 (E) 1. Food for the future, 1990 (Bahasa/Burmese/Chinese/English/French/Hindi/Lao/Malaysian/ 12. Farmer experimentation and innovation. A case study of knowledge generation processes in agroforestry Portuguese/Sinhala/Spanish/Vietnamese) systems in Rwanda, 1996 (E) 2. Our trees and forests, 1992 (Ch/E/F/S) 13. Developing participatory and integrated watershed management. A case study of the FAO/Italy Inter- 3. I am so hungry I could eat a tree, 1992 (Ch/E/F/S) regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and Development (PUCD), 1998 (E ) 4. Fabulous forest factories, 1993 (Ch/E/F/S) 5. Future forests, 2000 (Ar/Ch/E/F/S) COMMUNITY FORESTRY FIELD MANUALS • Future forests [poster], 2001 (Ar/Ch/E/F/S) • Teacher’s guide, 2001 (Ar/Ch/E/F/S) 1. Guidelines for planning, monitoring and evaluating cookstove programmes, 1990 (E/F/S) • English language supplement, 2001 2. The community’s toolbox: the idea, methods and tools for participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation in community forestry, 1990 (E/F/S) 3. Guidelines for integrating nutrition concerns into forestry projects, 1991 (E/F/S) COMMUNITY FORESTRY WORKING PAPERS 4. Tree and land tenure: rapid appraisal tools, 1994 (E /F/S) 1. The role of alternative conflict management in community forestry, 1994 (E) 5. Selecting tree species on the basis of community needs, 1995 (E /F /S) 2. Participatory approaches to planning for community forestry, 1995 (E) 6. Marketing information systems for non-timber forest products, 1996 (E ) 3. Forest resources and institutions, 1998 (E) 7. Crafting institutional arrangements for community forestry, 1997 (E) COMMUNITY FORESTRY CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SERIES COMMUNITY FORESTRY GUIDELINES • Integrating conflict management considerations into national policy frameworks. Proceedings of a satel- 1. Women in community forestry: a field guide for project design and implementation, 1989 (E/F/S) lite meeting to the XI , 10-13 October 1997, Antalya, Turkey, 1998 (E) 2. Integrating gender considerations into FAO forestry projects, 1994 (E/F /S) • Proceedings: electronic conference on “addressing natural resource conflicts through community forestry”, January-May 1996, (E) 132 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY Community Forestry Publications 133

OTHER COMMUNITY FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS Our publications and videos are available from • Community-based tree and forest product enterprises: Market Analysis and Development [brochure], 2000 (E/F/S) your regional focal point: • Community-based tree and forest product enterprises: Market Analysis and Development [manual], 2000 (E ) Anglophone FTPP/FAN Francophone Programme Arbres, forêts et • Community forestry posters, 1997 (E) Africa: Forest Action Network Africa: communautés rurales • Conflict and natural resource management [brochure], 2000 (Ch/E /F /S ) P.O. Box 380, Uhuru Gardens Composante Afrique de l’Ouest et • Forests, trees and food, 1992 (E/S) Nairobi, Kenya Centrale (FTPP-ASS) • Forests, trees and people programme [brochure], 1998 (E/F/S) Fax: (254-2) 718398 B.P. 1756 • Forestry and food security [brochure], 1996 (E/F/S) E-mail: [email protected] Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso • Forestry and food security [poster], 1996 (E/F/S) Internet: www.ftpp.or.ke Fax: (226) 364730 • The gender analysis and forestry training package, 1995 (E) E-mail: [email protected] • The participatory process for supporting collaborative management of natural resources: an overview, Central Facilitador subregional para 1999 (E) America: Centroamérica Latin America Revista Bosques, árboles y and Caribbean comunidades rurales • People and forests: community forestry at FAO, 1997 (E/F/S) Apdo. Postal 8198 - 1000 San José, Costa Rica (Spanish): Av. Manuel Gómez 634 • Proceedings of the international workshop on community forestry in Africa. Participatory forest man- Fax: (506) 280-2441 Apartado 11-0152 agement: a strategy for sustainable forest management in Africa, 26-30 April 1999, Banjul, The Gam- E-mail: [email protected] Lince, Lima, Perú bia, 2000 (E&F) Internet: www.rfc.usma.ac.pa/ Fax: (51-1) 265-0441 • Restoring the balance: women and forest resources, 1991 (E/F/S) revis_bolet E-mail: [email protected]

FAO FORESTRY PAPERS Europe: The Editor, FTP Newsletter North America FTPP/NACARCE Swedish University of Agricultural and Caribbean North American & Caribbean 7. Forestry for local community development, 1978 (E/F/S) Sciences (English): Regional Center 64. Tree growing by rural people, 1985 (E/F/S) Research Information Centre 5400 Grosvenor Lane 79. Small-scale forest-based processing enterprises, 1987 (E /F /S ) P.O. Box 7034 Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA 90. Forestry and food security, 1989 (Ar/E/F /S ) E-75007 Uppsala, Sweden Fax: (301) 897-3690 136. Managing forests as common property, 1998 (E) Fax: (46-18) 671980 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: ftp.network@ Internet: www.cof.orst.edu/org/istf kontakt.slu.se Ar – Arabic F – French in preparation Internet: www-trees.slu.se Ch – Chinese S – Spanish out of print E – English PDF and/or HTML file available 134 FORESTS AND PEOPLE: TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF COMMUNITY FORESTRY

South Asia: FTPP Facilitator for South Asia Other regions: Senior Forestry Officer FTPP@WATCH Forestry Policy and Institutions Women Acting Together for Branch (FONP) Change Forestry Department P.O. Box 5723 Food and Agriculture Organization Baneshor, Kathmandu, Nepal of the United Nations Fax: (977-1) 473675 Viale delle Terme di Caracalla E-mail: [email protected] Rome 00100, Italy Internet: www-trees.slu.se/nepal/ Fax: (39) 06 5705-5514 watchindex.htm E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.fao.org Southeast FTPP@RECOFTC and www.fao.org/forestry/ Asia: Regional Community Forestry FON/FONP/cfu/cfu-e.stm Training Center Kasetsart University P.O. Box 1111 Bangkok 10903, Thailand Fax: (66-2) 561-4880 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.recoftc.org FORESTS and PEOPLE : 25 years FORESTS and PEOPLE: of Community Forestry years 25 of Community Forestry